REPORT: On health care reform, networks highlight perceived setbacks far more than progress
SUMMARY: In two studies, Media Matters documents that TV news networks have repeatedly given considerably more attention to perceived setbacks to progressive health care reform efforts than to events that signal progress for those efforts.
In their health care reform coverage, media have repeatedly given considerably more attention to perceived setbacks to progressive reform efforts than to events that signal progress for those efforts. A Media Matters for America analysis of transcripts available in the Nexis database has found that broadcast and cable news featured almost twice as many segments mentioning the American Medical Association's (AMA's) reported opposition to a public insurance plan as segments mentioning the AMA's recent announcement that it supported the House Democrats' health care reform bill, which includes a public plan.
That finding is consistent with an earlier Media Matters study showing that the number of cable news segments in Nexis mentioning an initial Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of an incomplete version of a Senate health committee draft bill was far greater than the number of segments mentioning a later CBO analysis. That later analysis showed that an updated version of the bill would cover more people for less than the earlier scoring had suggested. Media Matters has also documented a pattern in which media suggest that President Obama's reform effort is in serious jeopardy, despite events -- including the AMA endorsement and revised CBO score -- that indicate reform efforts have made substantial progress.
Following the June 10 publication of a New York Times article reporting that the AMA "will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan," broadcast and cable news networks ran a total of 23 segments from June 11 through June 14 that mentioned or discussed the AMA's reported stance, according to a search of transcripts available in the Nexis database. By contrast, following the July 16 announcement by the AMA that it supported passage of the House Democrats' health care reform bill, the networks ran a total of 12 segments from July 16 through July 20 mentioning or discussing the AMA's endorsement:
The results echo a previous Media Matters study looking at cable news coverage of the CBO scores of the Senate health committee draft bill. The study, which analyzed transcripts available in the Nexis database, found that on June 15 and 16, cable news networks ran at least 15 segments that mentioned a June 15 preliminary analysis by the CBO of part of the bill, frequently highlighting claims that the bill cost too much for the number of Americans it insured. However, from July 2 through July 6, only one cable news segment mentioned that in a July 2 analysis of an updated version of the bill, the CBO concluded that the legislation would cover more of the uninsured for a lower price:
Methodology
Media Matters tallied every segment on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, and NBC available in the Nexis database that featured a mention or discussion of the AMA's reported opposition to the public option -- first reported online on June 10 on the New York Times' website, but appearing in the paper's print edition on June 11 -- from June 11 through June 14. We also tallied every segment from July 16 through July 20 that featured a mention or discussion of the AMA's support, announced July 16, of the House health care reform bill. July 20 was included to compensate for the release first appearing the afternoon of July 16 rather than the morning. The search string "American Medical Association or AMA" was used. Repeat episodes of programs that came up in the search were not included.
The methodology for Media Matters' study of cable coverage of the CBO scores is available here.
I happen to believe in America. I realize the Republicans don't, or they wouldn't be standing in the way of providing health care to those who are without. They wouldn't be standing in the way of developing renewable energy and increasing efficiency.
We are capable of finding solutions to all these problems. We are capable of being a great nation, one which leads the world in something more practical, more useful, more beneficial than dropping bombs more precisely than any other country on earth. We have lost the lead in all exports except warfare. We could lead the world in cleaning up the planet and living within an energy budget. I believe that Americans are the most resourceful, innovative, practical and capable people on the planet. I see the Republicans standing in the way of our future, and all I can ask is 'Why?'
On the current topic, do republicans bear burden for out current healthcare situation? You betcha! I actually hold them fully responsible, because had thay lived up to their potential and done what they said they would do, we would have a free marker solution to this problem and not be inching further down the road to socialized medicine.
And if you don't think were going there then you are decieved. But, it's a free market place with a public option you say. How can insurance companies compete with a competition that doesn't have to make a profit? If my small business does not turn a profit, it goes belly up. The federal government just deficit spends. There is no incentive to be efficent. Which is why the government isn't efficient. But, you can keep your insurance that you have if you want. Sure, for now. That is until your employer see's that the public option is cheaper for him (doesn't mean better for you) and drops the company insurance and puts you on the public plan.
The real problem I see is the rush to put this thing in place. Good, bad or otherwise, let's get it done by Aug. 1. Why don't we instead try to focus. We keep hearing about 50M people without insurance. Well we know some don't have it and don't want it and we shouldn't force them to. This is America. Home of the free. And that includes free not to have health insurance if I don't want it. We know a good portion are illegal. Well, we shouldn't be paying for them anyway. Why don't we do our best effort to figure out how many of that 50M WANT healthcare, but either can't afford it or aren't offered it. Then we can focus on trying to get them insured. And that doesn't mean the government has to pay for it. Maybe we could divide them evenly among all the insurance carriers and they could receive free or low cost insurance based on their income.
Then let's focus on the red tape. You know all those silly rules and regs that vary from state to state. Let's cut it out. Let's get uniform. Let's let people have real options based on what they need. I may be 22 and single with no health problems. Ok, all I need is catastrophic coverage. Don't make me pay for everything. There are better ways we can do this.
The real point is, instead of putting together this giant monster that is going to bog us down, let's instead piece something together. Experiment with things to see if they work. If it works, keep it. Maybe just tweek it. If we get this behemoth it will likely be here to stay. Even if it sucks. Let's instead take it a little more slow. Let's fund the panel of experts that were created years ago but never funded and let them come up with some ideas and see if there is another way.
All I know is government program don't ever go away and we could be stuck with this thing, even if it's bad.
All I know it politician, whether republican or democrat, rarely have to right answer to problems. Government is not the answer, it's a BIg part if not all of it.
'
Dem's waivering
The push is because of the limited ability of members of Congress to pass a decent health care bill. This is because of Democratic bluedogs/beholden to the healthcare industry & Republican resistence which I find obscene.
If you will not take the time to research healthcare delivery systems in every industrialized country in the world that despite their flaws actually cover all their citizens, you're part of the problem.
What is particularly appalling is the incredible dishonesty, fear-mongering, and hate-mongering coming from the republicans. They seem to think that they can get away with the most blatant lies about "socialized medicine", "government takeover", "jobs lost by taxing the rich", "helping illegal aliens", to name just a few.
The media perpetuates these republican lies, and unfortunately the democrats do a lousy job in countering them. But the people are not this stupid. If the republicans succeed in blocking reform, they will get blamed for it, and they will be pay for it in 2010.
Where is the in-depth analysis of the various health care proposals???????????
1) what is the number of citizens that are not insured because they have been denied coverage or cannot afford it? (Certainly isn't 50,000.000)
2) do the citizens want affordable coverage or "free" coverage?
3) will the public option provide more than one choice?
4) can anything be done with the current system to make it more responsive, affordable (uniformity from state to state or uniform coding, billing standards as examples)?
5) will everybody covered by the public option be required to be a stakeholder in the system (paying at least a portion of the premium, care, etc.)?
6) will there be provisions made for those who opt out for whatever reason, be it having enough resources to be self-insured or some personal reason?
1. Not sure that is knowable nor germaine to the argument. Even supposing most of the 50,000 arguably will not buy health insurance even though they arguably could afford it does not exhonerate the current system. The more informative question seems to be "Why do many of these people not want to buy the insurance?" Personally, I have been in that situation. I did not buy health insurance (even though I could afford it) because I thought the plans that were available (to the self-employed) were complete rip-offs. First of all, the deductables on the "more affordable" plans were very high to the point I would never reach the limit in a year. Secondly, I knew other people who had insurance that actually used it, only to be dropped from coverage BECAUSE they used it.
Why aren't you asking where the 30% of administration costs go to or why do we support private health insurance when the very act of providing health care competes directly with health insurance company profits? Most countries that have nationalized healthcare insurance only spend 5% of healthcare costs on administration. It is not hard to see where most of the savings should come from on this issue.
One of the big concerns from those that I have talked to is the fact that if government has majority role in underwriting health insurance, they will certainly set the reimbursement rates. In certain parts of the country it is difficult for one on Medicare to find a Dr because of the reimbursement rates. I have spoken to several using the VA system, some are happy, some are not. We have read articles about the shortcomings in the IHS, because we are not attracting the top Drs to those Federal Agencies. It is a concern. We look at our costs of an Office call at think it is outrageous, but when we realize how many personnel that Dr requires to help handle patient load and paperwork (again uniform billing procedures, uniform coding, etc could provide savings), malpractice insurance, etc.
I don't know what type of business you were in when you were self employed, but you and I know your costs involved more than what you were "paid" for your work. Been involved in that part of several small businesses, so I know that "chargeout" rates covered more than bare wages by a considerable amount in most cases.
I think this subject needs more debate in WA DC than to say we need to pass something by a given deadline. This is one case where a well discussed plan would be much better than one hastily debated and passed.
Prez mentioned something about insurance companies having record profits this year? If I were CEO or a major share holder in one of these companies, I'd sell my first child for status quo.
Even republicans know they can't kill Social Security. Sure, they tried. See Dick Armey, who's now back flacking for AHIP - America's Health (sic) Insurance Plans.
I also think the thinning ranks of media mean that they don't have people with knowledge of the healthcare beat. Without domain knowledge they're left to he said, she said and then posturing.
It doesn't take much to find people who think they have insurance but discover they have been denied coverage and have to sell all their assets to pay off bills. Where to find them? Pick a supermarket parking lot, a street corner in small town America, s gas station, etc. Ask someone over age 40 and if they don't have the problem, they know someone who does.
What is the reason for distorting the information.
Is it because they crave the drama of hyping the negative or because they agree with the rightwing's view.
Do they even understand that they are doing the opposite of what a journalist is suppose to do: inform and educate with the truth!
Every comic book superhero needs adversity and setbacks, and the media are just doing their part to perpetuate this myth.
As a progressive I would adore substantive discussions about the merits as well as the pitfalls of proposed health care legislation. Genuine debate is a good thing. Distortion and misrepresentation of facts simply to advance a fabricated "story" line, however, are reprehensible.
Knocking down Dick Armey (the guy who wanted to kill Social Security and is now flacking for health insurers) is a lot more heroic than opposing rescission.
Obama literally is going to have to go against his nature. That is, he doesn't like to appear contentious. He doesn't like to demonize. He doesn't like to confront people.
But he needs a demon he can slay to be the hero of this story.
That is the Big Media in US is 99% right-wing, leaving few Web sites to provide the truth vs right-wing lies coming out of the Big Media in US.
As the best evidence of the above statement consider that the lunatic right-wing Media (Talkradio, Fox, etc.) calls New York Time (NYT) to be liberal! But NYT is anything but liberal given that
98% of the time the reporting on NYT are for right-wing causes, from 99% of the reporting before Iraq war having been in support of that unnecessary War, to 95% after.
But just consider the reporting in NYT today, July/21/2009: NYT had another hit piece against Universal health care today, this time by
David Brooks with title of "Liberal Suicide March", in which article he was essentially saying that the Democrats push for a watered down version of Universal health care is too liberal and is over-reaching, and it will lead to the demise of the
Democrats because it is too extreme similar to Republicans loosing their way supposedly under Bush admin due to Iraq
war and not having provided Americans with Universal health care. An argument that is so right-wing, so
lunatic that leaves one speechless.
To really appreciate what a right-wing lunatic lie this article was, just consider this fact that Rush Limbaugh
referred to this article in NYT on his Radio show the same day to argue his point of how and why Universal health care is
"Socialism..", will lead to demise of "Liberals.." etc..
For sake of this post not getting 2 long here, U can read much more about this issue and related FACTS here:
http://www.alturl.com/shwh
Apparently you want us to believe you have followed the money. Care to provide a link backing up your claim?
"...However, from July 2 through July 6, only one cable news segment mentioned that in a July 2 analysis of an updated version of the bill, the CBO concluded that the legislation would cover more of the uninsured for a lower price:..."
I had to laugh when I read that. This thread is a typical agenda driven fluff piece using generalities "more.. and for a lower price..." in place of facts or statistics.
Hint to MMFA: Next time if you want to be taken seriously, rather than just throwing more red meat to your fan base, provide the data to back up your claim.
As usual, you missed the rather elementary point.
Of course I know where the CBO report can be found. However if MMFA is going to simply point to the whole report rather than pull excerpts from it, they are abandoning their argument at the most critical juncture. Knowing MMFA for documenting ad absurdum conservatives, it is disingenuous, not to mention telling, that they do not provide the facts to support their argument.
Speaking of ignoring, you just did the same as MMFA. You failed to point out how the latest CBO report covers more insured at a lower cost than their earlier report.
You should also realize it is not my job to prove your point.
ps. I wouldn't know about nannys. Perhaps you have a personal experience you'd like to share?
While you're changing the subject. Any guess how many trillions in Federal Debt were added during the 8 years of Bush 41?
Is that debt amount smaller or larger than the TOTAL shortfall in healthcare? By what ratio is it smaller or larger?
Could you kindly link to one of your past comments complaining about budget deficits during the Bush 41 years?
Bush 41 added over $5 trillion in federal debt in 8 years.
That is 5 TIMES the cost for 10 years of possible national health care.
During the next 10 years we'll likely spend $7 trillion on military. I refuse to call it national defence because its far in excess of our defence needs and see still seem to be more insecure. Hence my moniker National Insecurity.
We could trim $1 trillion from military and still spend double the rest of the world.
However, THIS, is a debate about healthcare reform and what it's going to cost this country. THIS, is not a debate on what Bush did or didn't do. I've said it before and I guess I have to say it again here, my momma told me two wrong don't make a right. Stand on the merits of you argument on THIS topic it's old and it's tired.
My biggest fear is that the insurance industry uses this bill in order to rig the system in their favor even more (if that is possible).
I do not trust the Democrats or the Republlicans to do the right thing here either. Both of them are co-opted by corporate health insurance and other entrenched interests that are demonstratably at cross-purposes with cheaper and better national health care.
For some reason the Cato guys never mention that.
Search Dick Armey and AHIP.
Mind you, I am all for using the free market where it works best, but what has become painfully clear to me over the years is that a for profit private health insurance system is demonstratably at odds with providing low cost and high quality health care.
Could I save money if I negotiated with the Dr on my own (over his/her listed rates)? Probably, but at the present I leave that up to the insurance company (and that is worth at least something to me and them).
I dislike, with a passion, having to pay that portion of my auto insurance that covers me in case some one else is under insured. By the same token, I would hate to be contributing to health insurance premiums in the same way (and we are, in one way or another). I'm not opposed to subsidizing someone who really can't afford the full premium, but that person also needs to have some stake in the process in order to try to keep costs in line. That is one reason that I think each and every citizen of this country should pay at least some income tax (besides payroll taxes (insurance premiums)), so they have a better realization that they too are a part of the government.
I am not against profit in the private delivery of Healthcare or the pharmaceutical industry where R&D occurs. I do not think the number of licensed physicians is part of the free market currently and it should be released. It appears to be largely controled by the AMA in an effort to keep doctor's wages artificially higher. There are ways to improve the delivery, but the difference is largely marginal.
The only way I can see to substantially decrease costs in the system is to have a public option. The CBO has born that out as well.
The ways you mentioned were interesting and may work on a small level, but I do not see them contributing towards eliminating a significant amount of the administrative costs.
In taking your last paragraph, maybe those ideas would nt work large scale. Much of that can also be said about large scale socialism, which is one reason that I'm not scared about the talk of such. Socialism, a grand idea, can work when the participants are willingly engaged as we see in certain isolated sectors around the world. But when people, who are free spirits so to speak, are forced into that type of system, they will either lose, over time, the will to excell, or the system will collapse. At the same time, a fully capitalistic society may, and probably will, see a collapse due to the excesses of the top of the group, or the excesses of the government in trying to create too many controls. There needs to be within each of us a certain moral compass that says we need, whenever possible, to share (much as we see with the Gates family, as an example) or we need to contribute in whatever way we can to the good of the society.
Thank you for the discussion. I have found a link to factcheck.org that discusses the makeup of the uninsured that you requested earlier. It is based largely on the Kaiser Foundation's research.
Personally, I would like to see doctors educated in a service plan. They go to school and get their education on the government plan and then they intern and serve a term of public medicine in an underserved community. The details can be worked out, but I think that would be attractive to many doctors and the costs to the public would not be that high. There are lots of things we can do to lower the barriers to become a doctor. It would also be wise to try and get rid of licenses for doctors who repeatedly lose malpractice judgements.
Tort reform may also have an impact, but considering the last round of tort reform had almost no effect, I am not optimistic about that route.
Now if all of this hasn't calmed your nervousness about reform's effect on R&D, think about this:
INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T EVEN DO FRICKEN R&D. But don't get me wrong. They will lose a chunk of their massive recession proof profits because the reform bill will force them to provide better coverage at a cheaper price.
News Flash: there is little competition presently in the medical insurance market, it's an oligopoly where all firms agree on a very high prices for all policies therby eliminating any real competition that benefits consumers (like in OPEC). The public insurance option will introduce cheaper and better policies in a self sustaining organization. I think that it should be self sustaining so that the public option cannot undercut reasonable private policy offers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32091708/ns/politics-white_house/
Now, to those of you who are holding republican responsible for the stalled healthcare reform, you should instead look in the mirror. The republicans currently do not hold enough seats in either house of congress to stop anything. If things don't get done it is the democrats and ONLY the democrats who are responsible. Eventually Obama and the democrats will have to stop whining about what the inherited and own up to what is theirs. Remember, while Obama may have only been in office for six months, the democrats have had since 2006 to get something done.
Just because Bush deficit spent (which I was against), doesn't mean Obama should. Just because Bush "rushed" to war, doesn't mean Obama should rush a heathcare bill. War and healthcare, it's apple and oranges. If you want to debate the healthcare bill then do it, quit muddying up the waters with the irrelevant past. It may be relevant in some cases but not this one. Two wrongs don't make a right. My momma told me that. Quit saying that "Well were more transparent that the last administration" , when being asked questions about lack of transparency. That's not what Obama promised. He promised complete transparency. Is introducing a huge ammendment to Cap-and-Trade at the 3am the day of the vote transparent? Of course not. But don't say your doing better than the other guy did. If your the guy, meet the standard you set.
Reid says Senate to delay health care vote
Obama opened the door last night and Reid pushed on through.