Fox News lets Breaux discuss health care reform without revealing he is a health care lobbyist
Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron failed to disclose that former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), who Cameron said "warns Democratic leaders now that trying too much too fast could backfire and undermine achievable [health care] reforms," has lobbied Congress this year about health reform for the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). This is part of a pattern on Fox: On several occasions, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich has been provided a forum to attack health care reform without disclosing that he reportedly profits from an organization that receives annual membership fees from health insurance companies.
Cameron failed to identify Breaux as a health care lobbyist
Cameron noted only that Breaux is a "prominent Democratic centrist and former Louisiana senator." In providing Breaux a platform to urge Democrats to embrace less comprehensive health care reform, Cameron misled Fox viewers by failing to disclose that Breaux is a health care lobbyist. From Fox News' Special Report:
CAMERON: Prominent Democratic centrist and former Louisiana Senator John Breaux had misgivings about HillaryCare in the '90's and warns Democratic leaders now that trying too much too fast could backfire and undermine achievable reforms.
BREAUX: Half an apple is better than no apple at all and I think that that philosophy could help a lot of people get something done on health care reform. [Special Report 11/10/09]
Breaux lobbied Congress on health care reform for PhRMA this year
PhRMA paid Breaux $150,000 for health care reform lobbying. According to the Senate Disclosure Act Database, Breaux and former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) lobbied both the House and Senate on "healthcare reform" during the third quarter of 2009 on behalf of PhRMA for a fee of $150,000 [Lobbying Report, 10/19/09]. Breaux and Lott represented PhRMA in their capacity as the heads of The Breaux Lott Leadership Group, which according to its website "offers strategic advice, consulting and lobbying to a wide range of clients."
Fox pattern: Network provided Gingrich cover to attack health care reform without disclosing conflict of interest
Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation receives annual membership fees from insurance groups. According to the center's website, members pay tiered annual membership fees, providing varying degrees of "[a]ccess to Newt Gingrich on your company's strategy," among other benefits. Insurance groups BlueCross BlueShield Association, UnitedHealth Group (the parent of UnitedHealthcare), and WellPoint Inc. are listed as "Charter" members, while the industry's trade association, America's Health Insurance Plans, is listed as a "Premier" member.
Gingrich has reportedly profited from his work with the center. In 2005, The New York Times described Gingrich as "a well-paid broker of ideas and influence in the field of health care policy" and reported that "[b]ase camp for Mr. Gingrich's health policy work is his Center for Health Transformation, a for-profit organization that occupies new office space overlooking K Street, the main street for Washington lobbyists." The Times also reported that the center's members "pay yearly fees of up to $200,000" [The New York Times, 1/16/05]. Further, The Washington Post reported in 2004 that according to Gingrich aide Rick Tyler, the center's for-profit status -- as opposed to being a registered as a nonprofit lobbying group -- enabled Gingrich to operate " 'under the radar.' " The article further quoted "former adviser Rich Galen" saying of Gingrich: "He's making more money than he ever thought possible and doesn't have to tell everybody where it's coming from" [The Washington Post, 7/13/04].
Conflicts hidden, Fox repeatedly provided Gingrich a platform to attack health care reform. For instance, Gingrich told Your World guest host Stuart Varney: "At the Center for Health Transformation, we're launching a petition drive to demand that if there's a public option every member of the House and Senate must belong to it that can be their only health plan. We think if they want to impose in the country that kind of disastrous plan, they ought to take the medicine first" [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 7/9/09, from Nexis]. Similarly, during the August 6 edition of Hannity, Gingrich said Democrats in the House "clearly want a big-government, Washington-centered, control-over-your-life model that would, over the next 10 or 12 years, eliminate the health system as we've known it and move us to a government plan" [Hannity 8/6/09, from Nexis]. On neither occasion was his conflict of interest disclosed.
Seems these guys are the kings of double standards.
--------------------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
for fox, having a democrat against the administration solidifies the ultra-right's claim...
I am a cancer survivor and a PAST volunteer for the American Cancer Society. The ACS sent me a request to contact you to tell you how disappointed I am that you voted "no" on H.R. 3963, The Affordable Health Care for America Act. But the truth is, I DO NOT agree with the ACS on the passage of the House health care bill! And I thank you from the bottom of my heart for voting no.
In fact, the ACS has lost my support, not only because of their endorsement of this massive, unaffordable health care bill, but because they have also lobbied for increasing taxes on cigarettes in the state of Florida in order to supposedly fund health care for children. I hope you, as my representative, did not support that sin tax.
It is my opinion that charity comes from an individuals heart and NOT thru taxation. In America, the land of the free, a citizen who WANTS to give is how it should be. Giving should not be forced through taxation! The ACS has lost my support because it is has gone the way of forcing citizens to give up their hard-earned money to the government so that the government can give it to those who are, for whatever reason, financially challenged. May I remind the ACS, my House representative, and my Senator of the following axioms?
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
Written by William John Henry Boetcker (1873 - 1962), an eloquent public speaker and American religious leader. Originally published as the "Ten Cannots" in 1916, the axioms are often misattributed to Abraham Lincoln.
The ACS declares that the House health care bill makes significant progress in providing adequate, affordable coverage to the uninsured and the underinsured by expanding access to Medicaid for those earning up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level and providing subsidies for the purchase of insurance to people earning up to 400 percent of poverty.
Well, I DO have compassion for the less fortunate (myself included; as a single woman, I live on $14 per hour), BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT a trillion-dollar bill that would forcefully take money away from hard working capitalists to reallocate to the poor, especially through the failed welfare program called Medicaid! If I were wealthy, I would be leaving this country and taking my money with me. And if all the wealthy capitalists left America for greener pastures, would that not be a fine thing? I think not.
The ACS informed me that the bill also calls for an investment of $34 billion over five years in a new Public Health Investment Fund for community health centers, primary care training and prevention and wellness research. Excuse me? But America DOES NOT have the money to pay for this, nor does it have the money to pay for a trillion dollar health care monstrosity!
America is deep in debt and it is time for some serious FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. A person cannot continue to spend what they do not have, because they eventually get so far in debt they end up bankrupt. And neither can our federal and state governments continue to spend borrowed money as if there were Money Trees in the back yards of the White House and the state capitol buildings. In all actuality, the Money Trees are hard working capitalists on which the poor, the slackers, the Welfare recipients, the prisons, and EVERY government program feeds off.
The ACS DOES NOT have my support any more. I would ask the ACS, my House representative, and my Senator the following question. Since every major federal government program is deep in DEBT and crumbling before us (including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid), WHY OH WHY should any American believe that a new government-run program would actually work? It will not! It will be just another failed Big Brother program that takes from the haves and attempts to give to the have-nots, all while burdening a country that is already deep in debt.
Government-run health care will join the ranks of the behemoth IRS, which is a big heavy weight on the shoulders of taxpayers (which is why I support the Fair Tax). And government-run health care will do nothing but increase the size and control of a federal government that is already way too big for its britches!
I have encouraged my friends and family (if they agree with me) to please go to the link and voice their opinion. I also suggested to them that they can make a difference by contacting their Senator to let him or her know how they feel, because now the health care "ball" is in the U.S. Senate ballpark! I hope our senators do not take the government-run health care bill and run with it unless they run to the nearest dumpster and throw it inside (which is where it belongs)!
Please wade through it at your own risk.
Randy
You should like her though, because she was a self-avowed atheist.
Translation: she was a coddled, cared for woman who was just bitter that the big bag commies made it impossible for her to have servants, like in the good old days. A trust fund by any other name still reeks of privilege.
And kudos to her for being an atheist. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Randy
Politically, objectivists advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Under capitalism, a strictly limited government protects the rights to life, liberty, and property for each individual and forbids that anyone initiate force against anyone else (ok, I do not agree with the no-force thing because law enforcement, the military, and those protecting themselves from criminals do need to get forceful when necessary). But then again, there are different types of force, true?
That same website said that the heroes of objectivism are achievers who build businesses, invent technologies, and create art and ideas, depending on their own talents and on trade with other independent people to reach their goals. Sounds good to me! It sure beats collectivism, progressive socialism, and a teat-sucking nanny-state.
Now, for the servants part. I do not even have a dishwasher (except for me). Nor do I desire servants (or anyone else for that matter) to wait on me (although it might be fun once in a while to get breakfast in bed). I work two jobs and do not expect the government to take money from trust fund babies or anyone else with money in order to give it to me in the form of welfare, food stamps, free housing, or - dare I say it - government-run health care.
But thanks for the comments to my admittedly long post.
Sounds like you think it was ok because they were Jews.
What alternative universe do you live in?
And you say we make stuff up