Quick Fact: Perino falsely claims health care benefits would take years to start
On March 12, Fox News contributor Dana Perino falsely claimed that people would "not see benefits for four to five years after" the health care reform bill passes. In fact, numerous benefits contained in the Senate bill would become available in the first year after the bill is enacted.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Perino falsely claims benefits will take years to begin
Perino: People would "not see benefits for four to five years after" bill is enacted. On the March 12 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News contributor Dana Perino said of the health care reform legislation, "people are going to be taxed for the next several years and not see benefits for four to five years after that."
Fact: Numerous benefits in Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill
Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. According to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":
1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.
2) No more rescissions.
3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.
4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.
5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.
6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.
7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.
8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.
9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.
10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.
11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.
12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.
Obama's plan also provides immediate benefits. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Obama's health care plan also provides numerous benefits that will enact immediately after the bill's passage or within the first year, including protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, tax breaks for small businesses, and aid to seniors participating in Medicare Part D. From the House Committee on Education and Labor:
Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions
- The President's proposal will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. This provision is effective 90 days after enactment, and coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational in 2014.
Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations
- The President's proposal makes an immediate and substantial investment in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. This $11 billion investment begins in 2010 and extends for five years.
No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children
- The President's proposal eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions for all Americans beginning in 2014, when the Exchanges are operational. Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, the plan prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.
Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans
- The President's proposal will create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees, effective 90 days after enactment. This re-insurance will help protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees.
Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit
- The President's proposal begins to fill the "donut hole" by giving seniors a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010.
Small Business Tax Credits
- The President's proposal will offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable.
- Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage; later, when Exchanges are operational, tax credits will be up to 50 percent of premiums. The full credit will be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees with average annual wages of $25,000, while firms with up to 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of up to $50,000 will also be eligible for the credit.
[...]
Patient Protections
- The President's proposal protects patients' choice of doctors by allowing plan members to pick any participating primary care provider, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before and woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.
Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults
- The President's proposal will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans for young adults who are not offered qualified coverage elsewhere.
Free Prevention Benefits
- The President's proposal will require coverage of prevention and wellness benefits and exempt these benefits from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans and all plans in 2018.
- Beginning on January 1, 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a free, annual wellness visit and will have all cost-sharing waived for prevention services.
No Lifetime Limits on Coverage
- The President's proposal will prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.
Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage
- The President's proposal will tightly restrict insurance companies' use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care, effective six months after enactment for all new health plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the Exchanges are operational, the use of annual limits will be banned for all plans in 2014.
Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage
- The President's proposal will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.
Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary
- The President's proposal will prohibit group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all group health plans in 2014.
(After all, that's why the Republicans are STILL considered the party of "fiscal responsibility," despite the fact that the past 3 Republican presidents spent recklessly. Granted, two of them had the good sense to raise taxes in response.)
Dana Perino actually worked in the White-House.
"Oh it's True, it's damn True"
Mr. News
[Hint: Lying and obfuscating the truth.]
How is it that so many Americans can be so deaf to seditious words, biased to soulless corporate entities?
And smarmy basterd-minions cooly seethe with hate, at not getting their ways, advocating more cruelties upon more Americans?
As more Americans suffer, loosing of what they had...and loved ones too.
Who would have thought it easier to denigrate and tear down other Americans, forsaking tangible help and all that is good?
Randy
Thanks for clearing that up, Dave. There for a second, I thought the bill didn't exclude you by name.
Randy
For example, the public option was or is meant to foster more competition in areas where only a few insurance companies operate. The Democrats want to introduce more competition by creating a whole new federal bureaucracy in the form of the public option. The same thing could be accomplished at no cost to the tax payers by opening up the state borders for health insurance. This would open up interstate commerce in the health insurance market which would also officially give the federal government the Constitutional authority to regulate aspects of it. But, noooooo. Can't have that. We've gotta use our governmental super powers to force more competition.
Deregulation to allow health insurance providers to sell across state lines will result in one thing: Monopoly at a national rather than a state level. It will bring no reduced costs, only reduced coverage.
What will happen? The largest insurers, in other words the ones who can easily afford it, will simply seek out the cheapest state legislature to buy, and purchase the insurance-friendly regulations that guarantee they will go on making billions of dollars in profit on the dead bodies of around 45,000 Americans a year. Very patriotic, don't you think? And exactly none of those savings will be passed on to the public.
The exception is where the federal government mandates what is basic minimal acceptable coverage, and provides a non-profit plan with enough enrollees to literally scare the current insurance industry into finding ways to lower costs without denying coverage.
Besides which, I thought that the free market was the ultimate golden calf for the Faux Cons. Competition is a good thing, remember? Let people vote with their dollars if they want to pay twice what they currently do just to keep seeing the BC/BS logo on their premiums envelopes, or pay half for the exact same thing from a federal insurance system. Huh. I wonder why the insurance industry is so opposed to this?
What research? Well, the first example that springs to mind is California. They created the California Air Resources Board, because they were tired of breathing the filthy air that burning fossil fuels contributes to. So, they mandated that by a certain date, all auto makers selling new cars in California would have to sell a specific percentage of overall sales as zero emission vehicles. This began while Clinton was president. The Big Three immediately took to whining about how they didn't have enough money, it would take too long to meet the deadline, they couldn't afford the research, blah blah blah. Clinton said, "Okay, I'll give you billions of taxpayer dollars to help support the research into battery technology, and you guys spend it making better batteries, and build electric cars." And the Big Three agreed.
They did the research, they ended up discovering some very promising battery technology, and then something happened. George W. Bush was elected. Immediately, they went to him. "It's not FAIR that California can hold us to a higher emission standard! We can't afford it! It's too expensive!" And George Bush said, "You're right. Let's file a federal lawsuit against California, and make them repeal that CARB legislation!" And, that is exactly what they did, and it got repealed. The point was raised that there should be a nationwide standard on emissions, set by the EPA, and not by individual states, because how could car makers comply with 50 different emissions standards?
But they could have, and very easily. By simply meeting the most stringent standard of the 50, all the others would automatically be met.
The very same thing will happen with insurance. If there is no federally mandated minimum of coverage, and if insurance companies are allowed to sell policies across state lines, they will simply comply with the lowest possible threshold of 'coverage' for maximum possible profit.
Do you really think that they have your best interests at heart, or are they just trying to fatten their own bottom line, MagCynic? There should BE NO PROFIT MOTIVE in health care. Period. Just like police, and fire, and EMS services.
There is currently no competition among private companies for 85% of Americans, because 85% of Americans live under a health insurance monopoly. About time to bring on some competition, I'd say. And, hey, if the government isn't competitive, as you claim, then WHY are the insurance companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars to kill reform? It's not like they will lose any business to the completely uncompetitive government plan, right? Nobody will even sign up for it, will they? Just like Medicare, and Social Security. Right? Yeah. Guess we'll see, huh?
The second part is, if crappy expensive coverage is all that is available, then that is what people who want coverage will have to buy. Right? And that's why the 'buy insurance across state lines' argument is a massive fail until you add a nonprofit government option. IF there were thousands of companies competing, that would work. But there aren't. As I said, 85% of all Americans live under a health coverage monopoly, where more than 40% of their market is controlled by ONE company. That's how it is RIGHT NOW.
As for profit motive, if you are talking about hair loss research or erectile dysfunction, you are completely right. Anything else? Not enough profit in it to justify research and development. Want an example? Easy enough: H1-N1. With a guaranteed market, did Big Pharma get right on developing a vaccine? No, they had to be ordered into research by the federal government, and were assisted by state colleges, funded by taxpayer dollars. Then Big Pharma gave wildly optimistic estimates of how soon the vaccine could be created in sufficient quantity for the public. Oops. The methods for making it are almost a century old, and those deadlines got missed. Who researched a faster and more efficient way to make vaccines? That's right! State and federally funded university teaching and research hospitals! And they GAVE the new process to Big Pharma for free.
So, no, they don't spend their money on research, as you suggest, and no, they don't fund most of the real breakthroughs that happen in medicine, MagCynic.
Want to go for Double Jeopardy where the scores can REALLY change?
I admit I watch news, but I don't depend on the news, if that distinction makes any sense. It is my most fervent hope that more people begin to think and reason and research for themselves.
You could open up state lines and still do all the other things Democrats want to do like fix preexisting conditions, minimum coverages, etc., etc. You could do it all without costing a dime to the taxpayer.
You have yet to explain how if only crappy expensive coverage is available, people will even have a choice to buy something different.
All the other fixes add up to nothing without a public option to force prices down, MagCynic. I've pointed this out before. You ever notice how all the 'competing' gas stations all over town all magically have the same price for their gas?
And you still haven't explained why we pay twice what anyone else in the whole world pays, and yet are ranked 38th for outcomes. Where does that money go? Because it's not helping the 45,000 Americans who died last year from lack of coverage at all. 3000 dead Americans got us the Patriot Act, Dept. of Homeland Security, and two pointless wars. Aren't you willing to spend 1/8 of that much money, and save 15 times as many people?
And the insurance industry does not follow this model. Otherwise, why would they randomly drop people who suddenly need expensive care? Otherwise, why would they create such massive and complicated bureaucracy? Only one reason: to deny as many claims as possible. Why? Because they are more interested in profits than making people well. If you really think insurance follows the example of WalMart, then explain why premiums go up 20-30% each and every year, MagCynic. That's never happened to WalMart prices.
Free market economics brought us to the point where 85% of Americans live under a health insurance monopoly. That is the ultimate goal a free market system: monopoly. Own the entire industry, so you can set the price at whatever you want. While the theory of free markets may back up your assumption, the actual real world that we live in shows that our current system is a massive fail. Tens of thousands die from lack of coverage, millions are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and profits are more important than the lives of the average American. Look out your window at the real world.
Quite true. And they would all race to the state with the least regulations that offered the most profit potential. Profit is what drives insurance companies, not caring for their policy holders. They are beholden to stockholders, MagCynic, and so that is who they care for and protect.
The cost of a barrel of oil has very little to do with the cost of gasoline. Once again, this is a monopoly in action.
Here's a link for you. Worldwide, our health outcomes rank us 37th. You know the exception? Our elderly. Do you know why? Because they are all cared for under the single payer system called Medicare.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage
There you go. Harvard looked into it. Makes sense when you think about it. Preventive care is much cheaper and more effective than emergency room visits for catching chronic conditions early. With 30 million Americans having no coverage, and only going to the emergency room when their condition makes it unavoidable, how surprising is it that many die for lack of coverage?
Finite? The Global War on Terror was billed as lasting for at least a hundred years by McCain, and Bush/Cheney & Co. When you consider that five years of these wars would pay for 20-30 years of health coverage for everyone, and reduce the deficit as well, I find your argument less than convincing.
You can claim they will lead to deficit eventually, but it is merely a claim. Social Security is still in the black, as is Medicare.
As for the CBO, even if they are wrong, and rather than saving us money it ends up being a break-even proposition, we will still benefit as a nation, because the costs of our coverage will go down. The reason for this is that everyone will have coverage, and so the bureaucracy necessary to deal with those who cannot afford to pay can be dispensed with. Also, we can avoid the economic turmoil caused by 750,000 bankruptcies each year because of medical costs, and the sad part is that many of these bankruptcies HAD health insurance!
Ha!
Maybe they will run it as efficient as the Post Office.
I'm not sure why you think this will lower costs. The insurance companies are comfortable making outrageous profits and they're not going to do anything to endanger it. The problem with the system we've set up is that a vital product is subject to the profit motive. This leads to what essentially is blackmail. We need an entity that's not beholden to the profit motive.
Furthermore since it doesn't cost anything it wouldn't hurt to at least try it. If nothing happens then we can go from there. Why immediately jump to forming another expensive government bureaucracy?
And NOBODY is talking about offering a government run public option for auto insurance, are they, MagCynic. That is what is known as a straw man argument. It is a logical fallacy, and an epic fail.
Let's ask who it is that is pushing for this option to buy coverage across state lines. Who could it be? Republicans, for the most part. Faux Cons, to be precise, on both sides of the aisle. They are paid shills for the insurance industry, who tells them what to support and what to oppose. Why do you think the insurance companies want to be able to sell policies across state lines? Why do you think they want their anti-trust exemptions extended? Why oh why? Because it will enable the average American to pay less for insurance? Do you REALLY believe that is true?
And, again, what's stopping health insurance companies right now from going to the states with the least regulations?I keep on hearing this argument but I've yet to see any proof that Republicans do what they are told from the insurance industry.
Why do you think this one thing will magically fix it all, MagCynic? Or, am I mistaken in this?
And back to the issue of state lines. Why wouldn't liberals want a public option AND to open up the borders? What is this aversion to confining health insurance to each state? Wouldn't having both mean even more competition? What other industries can't sell to people from other states? I know of none.
If it were my plan and I was the President I would set it up like this: First, what is the point of insurance? It's a hedge against the unlikely scenario that you need catastrophic care. Odds are that you will never use it but it's there in case you do. Insurance should never have been used for routine appointments, checkups, or normal medication. Let the federal government cover the cost of any necessary procedures in the event that someone's life is in danger or a permanent disability would occur. Insurance companies don't have to worry about covering those types of emergencies anymore. Instead, if they'd like, they can put cheaper, more efficient plans that cover routine appointments, checkups, etc.
Just like when one owns a home, one has homeowner's insurance that one hopes they never have to use, but it covers small fires and catastrophic fires and all kinds of other liabilities. It doesn't just cover large things.
They do list the five criteria by which all health systems are measured, of course. And they also loudly trumpet the foolish statement, "We must have great health care! Look at all the wealthy people from all over the world who come here to get treatment!" And, of course, that is the real point. One American in ten cannot afford to participate in this excellent care. We're not talking about how good a job hospitals and doctors do making people well again. We're talking about how to pay for it all.
If the top 10% of Americans got the best health care in the world, in the nicest hospitals in the world, with the most advanced and therapeutic techniques in the world, the WSJ would like America to be ranked first, according to how they interpret the WHO criteria. Of course, the fact that 90% of the populace would go untreated unless they went to an emergency room doesn't matter to the WSJ for several reasons: 1) Their audience is the wealthy, who will always be able to afford to pay 2) They are owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is more than willing to prop up insurance company profits through his various propaganda outlets 3) Poor people just don't count. The cutoff seems to be right around $250k a year in gross income. Below that, you just don't matter. At all.
The smartgirlnation article is a reprint of the WSJ article, and so suffers all the same problems.
As I've mentioned, the only place we are competitive overall in terms of outcome are among the elderly, who are all under the single payer system Medicare.
Ah, the Heritage Foundation. Let's see, they favor things like tort reform and selling insurance across state lines, but not a public option. So, they are wiling to make sure the cost for the insurance companies comes down, but they don't want to force them to then pass those savings on to consumers. Big surprise. Faux Cons who favor the wealthy. Who'd've thunk it?
I've yet to see an credible explanation not to trust the WHO report, aside from the whiny argument that it doesn't fit in with protecting insurance company profits. And if it existed, they would have it on FOX propaganda network 24/7, wouldn't they?
That's why this whole "sell across state lines" argument is a bunch of BS. All you would be doing is enabling insurance companies to move to the places where they would have the least amount of regulations, which would only exacerbate the current situation.
Randy
Is it really too much trouble for you to keep track of your own arguments?
Insurance companies will CONTINUE to provide insurance for virtually ANY insurable event! But in less favorable states, states that might have higher minimums, they simply have higher premiums so that they can pay claims and still make a profit.
You aren't paying attention! That much is clear.
Or you are just a troll, making troll posts, trying to distract us from the topic of this article - that Dana Perino was totally wrong about something that's been debunked countless times, and so she was LYING about it! She couldn't possibly NOT know that there are several benefits that take effect pretty immediately after passage, and so her assertion is a LIE.
So, which is it? Are you too imbecilic to keep up with a easy-to-follow discussion, or are you just making troll posts?
I totally refuted what you said, and given that this same thing has been debunked in your presence several times, that means that you're either a troll or an idiot.
If I call someone who performs abortions, a legal medical procedure that doesn't kill a person, but instead legally removes a fetus from a womb, a murderer, THAT'S a personal attack.
If I call Son of Sam a murderer after I detail the murders he committed, that's NOT a personal attack.
This is not rocket science.
And I don't care what makes YOU happy or unhappy. I don't CARE that you're tired of dealing with me - in fact, it thrills me that you're upset and frustrated!
I don't ONLY insult you. In fact, what I do is roundly debunk your nonsense, and then point out how your dishonesty exposes your dishonest character. You don't like that. Too bad, so sad.
1. tort reform - cap lawyers HUGE salaries...
2. charge the countries of origin for the 12 -20 million ILLEGAL ALIENS that run to the ERs
Two small examples.... BUT the left-wing nutters will come back with "it's < that 1 percent.... right... 54Billion over ten years, but NOT worth it???
So no, we REJECT your "solution" since it's not a SOLUTION! It's not that we reject small fixes. It's that we're telling you that you're full of it when you claim that this would be a good place to start.
And no, we can't stop providing coverage to anyone who walks into an ER in our nation. We can't provide them care and then bill the country that they come from either. It just wouldn't work, for about 6 different reasons, including that we have to interact with those other nations.
So, NO, you didn't provide a SINGLE example of ANYTHING that would have any kind of major impact on the problems of 30 million people not having coverage and it costing way too much.
It's YOU who is not looking at solutions that will actually make a significant difference.
So, if you have changes that WILL make significant differences, why don't you bring them on.
And, doofus, even though it WON'T work to fix the excessive costs except by a tiny percentage (and it's closer to 0.5%, not 1%), the Dems HAVE agreed to accept that as part of a comprehensive plan.
You're a dishonest hack.
On all the Sunday talk shows and all during the week, Media Matters allows the other networks to continue to get away with lying to their viewers simply because they are not Fox News.
Your newly found obsession with Fox News is allowing those who determine elections (the "IGnependents") to be brainwashed by CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS into putting Republicans back in power to (thanks to the filubuster) pick up right where they left off under Bush.
Media Matters is an organization I once truly admired. Now it is just another Fox News obsessed rant just like Countdown is.
Oops, that's right, you didn't provide a single piece of evidence of them doing that.
It's your baseless assertion that they are obsessed with FoxNews. It's not MMFA's fault that FoxNews generates a lot of the problematic behavior - it's FoxNews' fault that they aren't a legitimate news organization.
You have NO credibility here just because you wrote that you used to admire MMFA. You have to PROVE that they caused you to lose your respect for them.
Valid criticism comes with examples, proof that it's valid. Lots of counterpoints are relevant, as you must know, since points you raise are so often successfully refuted!!!!!!
I do NOT seem like I am opposed to anyone who has an independent thought - thanks for failing to provide a SINGLE example of me behaving that way, which simple echoes the SAME POINT I made to the previous poster! I swear, this is not rocket science, but you fail in the same way that the previous poster did! Don't you see the irony in that - that you are so CLUELESS that you made the same error?
And no, there are few people who post here who have even the equivalent credibility that I have here, much less more credibility. But thanks again for failing to provide even one example of how I don't deserve credibility.
All YOUR failure to do that did was provide evidence that YOU deserve no credibility! When YOU don't provide an example or two or three of things you're alleging are commonplace, YOU hurt your own credibility.
Thanks for digging your own grave!
I am not sure what I liked best sue, you telling me to stfu, or you claiming that few people here have as much credibility as you...a woman who has been kicked off this site numerous times. And of course....no one could have more credibility than you....wow...you don't think highly of your self do ya?
And please sue, what did your last paragraph even mean, oh one with such high credibility? lol
I don't have any higher opinion of myself than is appropriate. I have LOTS of credibility. One of the signs of the large amount of credibility I have here is the near-constant and ever-present stalking my posts get from trolls and sockpuppets. If I wasn't so scary to you and your ilk, you'd ignore me. Another are the posts echoing what I've said. A third are the thumbs up I get from other fair posters concerned about disinformation coming from conservatives and/or condoned/allowed by the media! A fourth is that MMFA has lots of credibility and I agree with them and echo their concerns. A fifth is that I also agree with the Obama Administration's efforts to show others that FoxNews doesn't deserve the credibility that they've been getting. I could go on, but everyone gets the idea. You, on the other hand, don't even have the credibility or the smarts to figure out that making the same mistake as the previous poster HURTS your credibility!
And if your reading comprehension is so stilted that you couldn't figure out the last paragraph, then go work on that, doofus.
You get more bizarre with each post sue.
Lets review why you think you have credibility
1. Due to your positives vs negatives on your posts. Well, add them up on this page alone, what do you get?
2. Because people attack your crazy rants....(it is because they are crazy)
3. Because you agree with MMFA....(wow, you are credible because you are unoriginal?)
4. Because you agree with Obama.....I am sure he is happy to have your support sue.
5. Other posts that echo you. Ummm sue, most of the far left posters here hate you. The dems here give you far more thumbs down then those from the right. They are not laughing with you hon, they are kind of treating you like that "special" friend everyone has.
MediaMatters thoughtfully provides you with several methods for contacting them concerning examples of conservative misinformation in the media. If you feel that stories on other networks are being overlooked because of FOX Propaganda saturation bombing, please submit these examples of conservative misinformation to MMfA forthwith. I for one will be quite glad to have at them, whoever they are, if they are not being strictly truthful. We have far too many serious issues to deal with to let anyone slide by on even half-truths. Here is a great place to start!
MediaMatters thoughtfully provides you with several methods for contacting them concerning examples of conservative misinformation in the media. If you feel that stories on other networks are being overlooked because of FOX Propaganda saturation bombing, please submit these examples of conservative misinformation to MMfA forthwith. I for one will be quite glad to have at them, whoever they are, if they are not being strictly truthful. We have far too many serious issues to deal with to let anyone slide by on even half-truths. Here is a great place to start!
-------
I have submitted them before and you (if you work for MMFA) have posted one of them in the past giving me credit for contributing.
I have been reading MMFA since it's inception so anyone from MMFA that has been here that long knows exactly what I am talking about and if you don't do a search using your own search engine. This complaint (fourth or fifth time now)of mine is directed toward MMFA and not toward groupies like the one who responded first to my post touting her "credibility" and then proceeded to use childish message board language such as "STFU". The only time you let the other networks have it these days is in some of your weekly summaries. If Fox news accounts for roughly 43% of the Cable and Network news viewers then how does MMFA explain that 90% or more of the expose' material on the website these days is about Fox News. hen I watch the press conferences, the biggest spew of Republican talking points hurled on a daily basis at Robert Gibbs comes from Chip Reid of CBS, Jake Tapper of ABC, Jeff Zeleny of the NYT, and the rest of the so-called "liberal media". The they go back every night and spew the distortions on their respective media outlets and they get a free pass from MMFA. I know you didn't used to do that and you know that you didn't used to do that so why the change? There has to be a reason for it. Your summary articles acknowledge that the problem with the press corps grew after Obama was elected. So I dont have to provide you with a bunch of examples because you obviously already know what they are.
Remember the article about how the media went to sleep for 8 years and then suddenly sprang back to life just as they did when Clinton was president? Well you would never know it from reading MMFA on a daily basis. It's all about the Far Right allowing the others to get a free pass. What gives?
I realize, just based on my own time here, that there is indeed a preponderance of stories about the lies that FOX spends 24/7 blaring, and perhaps that is not the most appropriate mix. However, with absolutely no control over policy, all I can do is suggest that you use the contact info MMfA provides, and send them an e-mail outlining your concerns. Aside from occasionally watching Countdown and The Daily Show, I don't consume much mass media news myself.