Fox News finds another cause: Promoting Rep. Bachmann's health care protest
In recent days, following its pattern of advocacy, Fox News has repeatedly promoted Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-MN) upcoming anti-health care reform protest, to be held on Capitol Hill and in the halls of Congress. Fox News has previously promoted numerous other rallies such as the April 15 tea party protests, health care town hall protests, and the 9-12 march on Washington.
Fox & Friends hosted Bachmann, promoted protest details
Carlson: "They can go to FoxandFriends.com; we'll link it to your website." During the November 3 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson hosted Bachmann to talk about the protest, gave details of the protest to viewers, and urged viewers to access the program's website for more information on the protest.
Fox Nation promoted Bachmann protest
On its front page, accessed on November 3, Fox Nation promoted the protest, writing: "Bachmann Urges Confronting Lawmakers on Capitol Hill."
Fox Nation included links of Bachmann promoting the protest on Fox News host Glenn Beck's radio program, and video of Bachmann on Fox & Friends.
Hannity promoted protest: "Maybe I'll have to show up and observe ... democracy in action"
On October 30, Bachmann and Sean Hannity promoted the D.C. protest. Bachmann said the protest is "Thursday at noon," adding, "You can go to MicheleBachmann.com for more information and we can walk together through Cannon, Longworth, Rayburn, walk through the capital, sit in the gallery." Hannity replied: "Maybe I'll have to show up and observe this so our cameras can see democracy in action."
From the October 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
BACHMANN: Sean, they are clearly on the fence. That's why this is such an exciting opportunity for us. Like our -- your good friend, Dr. Mark Levin, has said, this is our liberty and tyranny moment. This is it.
HANNITY: Yeah.
BACHMANN: This is about patriotism and manning up. And if we can get Americans, literally by the busload, to come to Washington, D.C., next week, look their member of Congress in the eye, pay a house call on Congress and say, "Don't you dare take away my health care," cradle to grave.
HANNITY: You know, you're --
BACHMANN: We'll stop this.
HANNITY: So you're organizing and asking people to come meet you on the steps of the Capitol on Thursday --
BACHMANN: Yes.
HANNITY: -- and you are asking them --
BACHMANN: At high noon.
HANNITY: -- to walk through the halls of Congress and try and voice your opinion. And so, if people want to participate, they're going to be there Thursday at noon.
BACHMANN: Thursday at noon. You can go to MicheleBachmann.com for more information.
HANNITY: All right.
BACHMANN: And we can walk together through Cannon, Longworth, Rayburn, walk through the Capitol, sit in the gallery --
HANNITY: Maybe I'll have to show up and observe this so our cameras can see democracy in action. But, Congresswoman, we're going to continue to follow it.
BACHMANN: Thank you.
HANNITY: It will reshape America into a very different country. Thank you for being with us. Thanks for your admonition and warning.
BACHMANN: Thank you, Sean.
Think Progress: "Conservatives Rally Behind Bachmann's Call For Anti-Health Care Reform Protest In DC"
Conservatives join Bachmann's protest call. As Think Progress noted, Bachmann has enlisted conservatives such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the Republican House leadership in promoting and endorsing her Thursday protest.
On his November 2 radio show, Beck stated:
BECK: Michele, God bless you. We'll get the word out and let's have you on a little bit later on this week and we'll continue to have you make the pitch for people going to Washington, D.C., noon this Thursday, and look them in the whites of their eyes.
The event will feature actor Jon Voight and serial health care misinformer Betsy McCaughey.
Fox News follows pattern of conservative protest promotions
Fox News promoted April 15 tea parties. In the lead-up to the April 15 tea parties, which the channel repeatedly described as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties," Fox News frequently aired segments publicizing and encouraging viewers to get involved with the protests. A Media Matters for America study found that from April 6 to 13, Fox News featured at least 20 segments on the "tea party" protests. A subsequent Media Matters study found that from April 6 to 15, Fox News aired at least 107 commercial promotions for its coverage of the April 15 tea parties.
Fox News promoted health care disruptions. Fox News promoted disruptions of Democratic town hall events by protesters opposed to health care reform -- protests that are being touted by Republican leaders and supported by conservative groups. Following the August 2 disruption of a town hall event hosted by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Fox News personalities repeatedly lauded such protesters and urged viewers to take similar action.
Fox News promoted 9-12 protests. In the lead-up to the 9-12 protest, Beck's website worked with others organizing the September 12 "March on Washington" and he repeatedly encouraged viewers to attend the protest. Fox News also heavily promoted the Tea Party Express tour -- the final stop of which was the 9-12 protest -- on Fox News, Fox Business, the Fox Nation, and FoxNews.com.
Also, I believe it was Monday night, MMFA kept showing errors from the server, and was unreachable for several hours.
If people had done with about the Iraq War, they would have been labeled traitors and un-American.
Does anyone remember her "Slit our wrists" comment? God, how I wish she'd try that on her own. One less idiot in the world, but I guess we have to respect the fact that though she is "D-U-M-M Dumb," she'll never be smart enough to realize that in order to escape the public humiliation she brings on herself is to do exactly that.
Then again, she does make for good comedy fodder...
I think Jesus was pretty clear on what he expected from us. Seems Ms. Bachmann should indeed read her bible.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 13:35
One of the Pharisees tested Jesus with a question, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" (Matthew 22:36 NIV). Jesus replied, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV).
Matthew 22:36-40 is the scripture I live by.
Matthew 6:5
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, do into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be ike them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
How?
The CBO says it will good things for the economy. 75% of doctors say it will do good for health. 72% of Americans say it will be good for them (Q. 33). Precedent in other countries say that the economists, the doctors and the people are right. But you say that the health care reform bills (and we both know you mean the public option in the health care reform bills) will do more harm than good. So, tell me, what arcane bit of knowledge resides in your possession that informs your expert opinion? It really must be something for you to stand up and say that everyone else is wrong. Mind sharing that with us?
2. 2100 some doctors belonging to the AMA out of 6000 polled replied to the survey you quoted. I went and looked at the reference. There is no 75% figure in the survey so you are playing a bit fast with figures, and since not all doctors belong to the AMA, 2100 and some doctors are not "75% of doctors"
3. The same survey you quoted about "72% of Americans" say "it"(and we both know you mean the public option) would be good for them, also shows Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's poll numbers in the tank. So if the public option is so desirable why are it's chief proponent's poll numbers so low?
And since they apparently think the public option will be so wonderful for us I have two questions:
1. Why aren't they willing to put congress on the same insurance as the rest of us?
2. Why are they waiting four years to start the program if there is such an all fired rush to push this through?
Even such folks as a writer for New Yorker Magazine, who supports the legislation acknowledges that the financing for the bill is vague and what is not vague is scary. But says we should just push it through anyway. (How progressive of him) http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2009/11/some-vaguely-heretical-thoughts-on-health-care-reform.html
Mind sharing with us why you find it necessary to misquote and twist your sources?
1. Your people put a lot of faith in the CBO last summer. The incessant call was "Wait for the CBO to score it." Yeah, we were going to get cooperation from y'all just as soon as the economists and accountants weighed in. Now, when the scoring didn't go your way, it's, "You can't trust the CBO cuz they're never right." Hypocrite.
2. It was a poll, genius. Polls rely on statistical analysis from sampling. You didn't really think when Gallup says something like, "20% of Americans self-identify as Republicans," that they actually called everyone in America, did you? Weren't you wondering why you hadn't got a call? Is that why you're so bitter? As to the 75%, that was supposed to read "some" 75%; the exact figure is 73.5%. Sorry if that confused you, that 1.5% error.
3. Ad hominem. That's what you've got? If the public option is so popular, why aren't Reid and Pelosi popular too? They're not even popular with liberals. They aren't pushing the agenda we elected them to push. Of course they're not popular, but conflating the man and the man's ideas is the oldest logical fallacy, and generally reserved for children.
4. Why does this keep coming up? Members of Congress are on the same plans as Federal employees, FEHB. FEHB is the model for the current health care legislation in both the House and the Senate. In other words, Members of Congress are putting us on the same plan they have. Reading is fundamental.
5. 14 items in the House bill start immediately. The rest of the legislation is going to require massive investments in infrastructure and personnel, so they gave themselves some wiggle-room. What's so hard to understand about that?
6. "What is not vague is scary." You didn't think I'd read the article? Basically, he disagrees that the intangible savings will materialize. That most economists and doctors agree the largest outlays in the health care system can be mitigated with a greater access to primary and preventive care is, I think, more reasonable. That progressives can disagree on the mechanics of legislation, while agreeing on the principle that it's inexcusable the richest nation on earth doesn't care for its citizens, is indicative of something entirely lacking on your side of the aisle: honesty.
As for me "misquot[ing] and twist[ing]" my sources, where?
Here is every percentage used in the New England Journal Of Medicine Poll article that you linked to:
"52 to 69% of Americans support such an option"
"Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options"
"across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option"
"Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%);"
""other" physicians — those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine — were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so. Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than nonowners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%, P<0.001), but a majority still supported it. Finally, there was also majority support for a public option among AMA members (62.2%)."
"Overall, 58.3% of respondents supported an expansion of Medicare to Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 years (see Panel B of graph). This support was consistent across all four specialty groups, with proportions in favor ranging from 55.6% to 62.4% (P=0.08)."
So, I don't see any percentage quoted here with a 7 in front of it. I see all sorts of percentages but none in the 70th percentile range. I think that qualifies as a misquoted and even twisted use of the original survey.
In addition you didn't quote the qualifiers that the authors of the article included in their summary:
"Some limitations of our study deserve comment. First, our response rate was 43.2%, which is modest, though typical of the most recent national physician surveys and surveys in general. There were no significant differences between survey respondents and nonrespondents in important characteristics, such as specialty, practice location, and practice type. Second, physicians' opinions about strategies for expanding health insurance coverage may have evolved during the period of data collection, given the intensive press coverage of the issues. However, we found no significant differences between respondents in the first and second waves of the survey. Finally, we did not ask physicians their views on other proposed solutions, such as insurance cooperatives."
9.6% of doctor's surveyed would prefer all health care funding come from the government (aka, single-payer).
62.9% want a mix of public and private money in the system, which means they want a public option, just not to the exclusion of private money.
Ergo, 72.5% (I made a mistake in my math earlier, but the difference is still insignificant in a majority this large) of doctors surveyed, which group are representative of non-respondents, want a public option. And furthermore, the AMA is the most conservative of the physician associations. That's why President Obama lobbied them so hard to get on board with health care reform. Fail.
"You see those two bars on the graph that say "Public Option Only" and "Public and Private Options," which add up to 73.5% (9.6% and 62.9%, respectively)? Let me break it down for you:"
"9.6% of doctor's surveyed would prefer all health care funding come from the government (aka, single-payer)."
commonman:
So out of the 73.5% only 9.6% of those want a single payer system? The other 62.9% want a mix
which we already have with Medicare and Medicaid.
But what if the other 62.9% realized that once a govenment run health care system goes into operation and has new printed money to subsidize it, so that the premiums can be artificially low?
What if they then realized that Private Insurance Companies would be unable to compete with these low premiums and bailed out of the mix, leaving the public option as a monopoly? What if the monopoly then had to either raise premiums of go bankrupt? Think this scenario is unlikely?
Go look at what happened in Florida when the State introduced a State run insurance in competition with private insurers. The public predictably ran to the cheaper state premium and the private insurers were forced by loss of profits to get out of the market. Now the state run plan is running out of money. Florida was fortunate this year not to have a big hurricane season. The next time they have one, the State will either have to massively raise premiums to cover the cost or borrow heavily to support the failing State system thus spuring decifit spending. This type of scenario done on a national basis is what scares many of us. See the link below.
http://www.houstontriallawyerblog.com/2009/05/articles/insurance-litigation/floridas-hurricane-insurance-situation-looks-dismal/
Florida's Hurricane Insurance Situation Looks Dismal
Posted on May 29, 2009 by Houston Trial Lawyer
In the midst of an era of high hurricane activity, large insurance companies have pulled out of Florida, leaving small and "last resort" companies to insure all of highly hurricane-susceptible Florida. Many of these entities are severely underfunded, putting Florida in a dreadful financial situation as hurricane season approaches.
Florida's state mandated "last resort insurer", Citizens Property Insurance Corp., and its catastrophe funds are starved, and any small insurance company may not have the funds to payout if even one hurricane hits the Florida coast.
Hurricane Damage - Insurance DisputesThe Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (CAT) which reinsures insurers, is also desperately underfunded. According to a CAT official, "The state was potentially on the hook for $28 billion last hurricane season but had access to only about $13 billion to reimburse insurers...The shortfall could be even bigger this year, up to $18 billion."
How will the Florida insurance mess unfold?
Ultimately, there is a good chance that after this hurricane season there will be many home owners that do not get paid in a timely manner, if they get paid at all.
Situations like these are part of the reason insurance companies dodge paying claims. With the risk of going into billions of dollars of debt, it is easier for insurers to delay or deny claims than to follow protocol and simply pay out legitimate claims.
With hurricane season well on its way, be sure you have the coverage you need. In the case that you must file a claim, hope that your insurer has the ability and is willing to get you the help you are entitled to. If that is not the case and your claim is denied or unreasonably delayed, be prepared to contact an insurance attorney who can assist you in obtaining your claims.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/10/does_the_public_want_a_public_1.html
1. Your people put a lot of faith in the CBO last summer. The incessant call was "Wait for the CBO to score it." Yeah, we were going to get cooperation from y'all just as soon as the economists and accountants weighed in. Now, when the scoring didn't go your way, it's, "You can't trust the CBO cuz they're never right." Hypocrite."
commonman:
Who are "my people" and how do you know what I have claimed in the past? This is the first time we have interacted. I trust the CBO like I trust the estimates that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have made about the cost of health legislation, that is to say, I don't.
I also don't use words like "cuz" even though you think that all conservatives are knuckle draggers who have no education. Since I have never quoted a CBO figure to support my arguments, your "Hypocrite" epithet is misguided and incorrect.
commonman:
Come on bob, be polite. I know it was a poll. I don't claim to be a "genius", though your use of the term is condescending. We already covered the fact that there is no 75% or 73.5% figure in the article that you quoted.
commonman: "genius" and "hypocrite"....hmmm, sounds like you are pretty good at ad hominum yourself. You have a survey to support your contention that all of Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reids unpopularity is with Liberals?
commonman: So the democrat majority congress will go ahead and allow passage of the amendment proposed that puts them into the current proposed plans, right?
boburell: 5. 14 items in the House bill start immediately. The rest of the legislation is going to require massive investments in infrastructure and personnel, so they gave themselves some wiggle-room. What's so hard to understand about that?
commonman: "MASSIVE INVESMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND PERSONNEL"? See it's words like "massive" that conservatives find unsettling. "Massive" sounds so expensive. And since the CBO routinely underestimates costs, (you do understand now that I am no big proponent of the CBO and the accuracy thereof right?)
like when they scored Medicare, I will oppose the concept.
6. "What is not vague is scary." You didn't think I'd read the article? Basically, he disagrees that the intangible savings will materialize. That most economists and doctors agree the largest outlays in the health care system can be mitigated with a greater access to primary and preventive care is, I think, more reasonable. That progressives can disagree on the mechanics of legislation, while agreeing on the principle that it's inexcusable the richest nation on earth doesn't care for its citizens, is indicative of something entirely lacking on your side of the aisle: honesty.
commonman:
Commpassion is an interesting word. Conservative are so often accused of lacking it. So lets take care of that part of the population who are truly unable to afford or obtain health insurance. That does not require a "massive" (to use your word) program that retools everyone's health insurance. The current proposals remind me of an analogy:
The patient comes in with appendicitis. All we need to do is operate and remove his appendix, treat him with antibiotics and have a few follow up visits.
The democratic doctors are proposing that we also give the patient, a heart transplant, knee, hip and shoulder replacements, and remove one kidney, a gall bladder and part of his large intestine.
The patient, with appendicitis would be wise to seek a second opinion.
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all amen, both free and bond, both small and great.
I think Jesus was pretty clear on what he expected from us. Seems Ms. Bachmann should indeed read her bible.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 13:35
One of the Pharisees tested Jesus with a question, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" (Matthew 22:36 NIV). Jesus replied, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV).
Actually, at some point, it might be a good thing. Moderate Republicans, concerned over a Beck Party challenge next year, might defect to the Democratic Party. We could see this weird third party thing creating an additional 40 seats in the House and maybe 4 or 5 in the Senate before the mid-terms. Hm.
Is there one of those AHIP spots? Or something from Chamber of Commerce?
Test your friends, neighbors, acquaintances or coworkers on the pink gun theory and report back.
I have listened to both sides of the debate and both sides are talking out both sides of their mouths. I for one think it is laughable that the same government that is handing out billions in each year in fraudulent Medicare claims, has cut reimbursements on Medicaid to the point that many doctors won't accept it and turned the Social Security system into a ponzi scheme. We made need reform but not bad reform.