Beck distorts Berwick comment to claim appointment vindicates his fearmongering over rationing
Glenn Beck claimed that a quote from Obama appointee Donald Berwick "confirms everything" Beck and Fox News had said about how health care reform would result in rationing. In fact, Beck deceptively edited Berwick's comments to remove Berwick's accurate statement that the U.S. health care system already rations.
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.
Beck crops Berwick quote, claims it "confirms everything that we said about him"
Beck: Berwick comments on rationing "confirms everything that we said about him." On the July 8 edition of Glenn Beck, Beck claimed that a quote from Donald Berwick, President Obama's appointee as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "confirms" what Beck and Fox News had previously said about how health care reform would lead to the rationing of health care. From the July 8 edition of Glenn Beck:
BECK: Here's Berwick on rationing, quote: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision will be whether we will ration with our eyes open." Mark my words: complete lives system. No one in the New York Times will even know what that is. But you will, 'cause we talked about it a year ago. It confirms everything that we said. Everyone, everyone, everyone denied this, except for Fox News and a CNS reporter who actually asked Robert Gibbs about his confidence in Berwick's nomination considering his rationing comments.
Beck, Fox News repeatedly pushed rationing canard. In their coverage of President Obama's health care reform effort, Beck and Fox News repeatedly claimed or suggested that reform legislation would impose rationing into America's health care system.
In full comment, Berwick explained that we are currently rationing care
Berwick on rationing: "Right now, we are doing it blindly." In the interview with Biotechnology Healthcare cited by Beck, Berwick acknowledges that the current health care system already rations care and that the question for the future is how best to do it. Beck omitted this context on air. From Biotechnology Healthcare, June 2009:
BIOTECHNOLOGY HEALTHCARE: Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of healthcare.
BERWICK: We can make a sensible social decision and say, "Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds." We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.
Indeed, insurance companies already ration care. The insurance industry has already admitted that they currently use cost benefit analyses to determine health care coverage. In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Wellpoint chief medical officer Dr. Sam Nussbaum told co-host Steve Inskeep that "where the private sector has been far more effective than government programs is in limiting clinical services to those that are best meeting the needs of patients." Former CIGNA senior executive Wendell Potter testified in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that "insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick" and that insurers "dump small businesses whose employees' medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected."
Beck says Berwick's "redistribute wealth" comments make him a "blatant socialist"
Beck: Berwick's "redistribute wealth" comments indicate that he is a "blatant socialist." On the same edition of Glenn Beck, Beck ran video of Berwick calling good health care systems "by definition redistributional" as evidence that Berwick is a "blatant socialist." From the July 8 edition of Glenn Beck:
BECK: Well, the New Yorker, they caught me. There's that story with my big fat face on it. Then a year ago they wrote this about me: "His ratings ... have gone up from his bottomless grab bag of fearmongering and inciteful" - I don't think they mean that in a good way - "inciteful comments about the coming redistribution of wealth." What fearmongering? What could I have possibly been thinking? We need to clear that up.
Right from the horse's mouth. From the guy who Obama has just appointed the head of Medicare and Medicaid, he'll straighten this out. Don Berwick, let's hear it for Don.
BERWICK (VIDEO): Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poor and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.
BECK: Do I need to say any more? I think that pretty much puts me in my place, doesn't it? Now how does the President respond to this blatant socialist running our health care system? Well that's next.
Medicare, Medicaid are popular programs that are "by definition redistributional." Medicare and Medicaid, which Berwick will oversee, are federal programs that provide health insurance to people who are elderly, disabled, or in low-income brackets. The funds for Medicare and Medicaid come from federal tax revenues, including a 1.45 percent payroll tax on all earnings. In other words, Medicare and Medicaid are funded by the redistribution of wealth. A June 2005 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 74% of adults "say Medicaid is a 'very important' government program, ranking it close to Social Security (88%) and Medicare (83%) in the public's mind."
Beck falsely suggested Berwick uncritically supports NHS
Beck: Berwick wants "to make our system just like Great Britain's health care system." On the July 8 episode, Beck quoted Berwick saying he was "in love" with Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS), and that "his idea of a fix is to make our system just like Great Britain's health care system." From the July 8 edition of Glenn Beck:
BECK: So not only does he want to blow up the best health care system in the world, not perfect, but the best in the world, his idea of a fix is to make our system just like Great Britain's health care system. He says he is quote "in love" with NHS. He went on to explain "it's a global treasure" and quote, "it's such a seductress" end quote.
Berwick: "Is the NHS perfect? Far from it." In the same 2008 speech cited by Beck, Berwick indicated that the NHS is "far from" being perfect and that "the NHS has a lot more work ahead." Berwick also listed "ten suggestions" for how the NHS "can do even better." From Berwick's 2008 speech:
BERWICK: Is the NHS perfect? Far from it. Far from it. I know that as well as anyone in this room, from front line to Whitehall, I have had the privilege of observing performance and even to help to measure its performance.
[...]
There is less progress in some areas, especially with comparison to other European systems, such as in specialty access, in cancer outcomes, in patient centeredness, in life expectancy and infant mortality for socially deprived populations. In other words, in improving its quality, two facts are true: The NHS in en route, and the NHS has a lot more work ahead.
If Beck wanted to truly educate rather than perpetrate fraud he would inform his audience on the actuarial modeling used to allocate health care insurance today.
Your existing private medical insurance (assuming you have one) is a redistributive model. If you have AETNA, BlueCross/Blue Shield, Kaiser, Cigna, et al, you are paying into a model in which a few members receive as much as $1 million in benefit this year while the vast majority of members receive perhaps 20-25%, or less, of their premium returned as benefits.
If you look through the clinical trial data I see you'd gladly be healthy with no need for medical care this year rather than have metastatic cancer spreading from your colon, upon which they operate; into your lungs, upon which they operate; and into your brain, upon which they debate whether it's worth operating because you have a life expectancy of 2 months without treatment or 4 month with treatment.
That's why Berwick will make an excellent CMS leader, he is honest about the challenges of delivering medical care in both practical as well as ethical terms.
Ask medical professionals and they support the selection of Berwick.
I'm not an actuary, just a medical device inventor.
So what Berwick endorses is a mandatory redistribution of wealth and rationing for all, versus our current system where you can opt out. As for Berwick's criticisms of the NHS, from the article it appears to be focused on the actual patient care that's given out, not the concept behind the whole system. In that respect Berwick is "in love with the system", just not necessarily with its implementation.
Beck simply pointed out that the man was a socialist who wants to impose wealth redistribution and rationing on everyone. Everything in this article points to that characterization being correct so how did Beck distort anything?
Let's say I was writing an article and decided to use your post in the piece.
"On the topic of Glenn Beck, Snicker, a poster on the Media Matters, offered a comment that said, '. . .the man was a socialist who wants to impose wealth redistribution and rationing on everyone.' "
Now, where am I wrong? I've quoted you accurately. There's no lie here, right? A complete distortion of the intention of your words, sure, but not a lie.
In Beck's case the topic he was discussing was Berwick's advocacy of mandatory wealth distribution and rationing of care. The fact that private health insurers ration care right now has no bearing on the subject at hand because private health insurance isn't mandatory. Beck cropped the discussion there because nothing said past that point had any bearing on the discussion.
I'll give you an example. Say you're pulled over for speeding and the cop starts to write you a ticket. You protest saying "I saw three cars zoom past me five minutes ago what about them?". You see, you're protestation has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you were speeding. It is irrelevant to the discussion and the cop will therefore rightly ignore you and write you up anyway.
In the same manner Berwick is advocating forced wealth redistribution and the rationing of health care. The fact that he then goes on to say that some people choose to voluntarily participate in such programs has no bearing on the discussion. His argument is essentially that some people do this so it must be good so let's make it mandatory for everyone, which is a nonsensical argument any way you look at it. Beck actually gave Berwick a pass by not pointing out how ridiculous his whole argument was.
The editor told me "the disclaimer on the editorial page says we reserve the right to edit for conciseness and clarity."
I said "yeah, but when the word you edited out is "NOT", that sort of changes the meaning, doesn't it?"
The fundamental difference between the Conservative and Liberal positions on this issue is pretty clear. Liberals think healthcare should be a right, Conservatives don't.
What you seem to be advocating is the "right" to force others to pay for your health care.
Unlike motorvehicle insurance, there is no uninsured/underinsured rider when it comes to health insurance.
Enough of this "socialism" nonsense!
Either you're wrong and the taxpayers are not paying for everyone's illnesses and there needs to be a law, or you're right and we're paying already so there doesn't have to be a law. Obviously there's something wrong with your analysis of the situation.
And that's the fatal flaw in your argument.
Insurance companies make around 5 to 7 percent profit. We'll be generous and say that 30% of the money they receive is going to overhead. So on average you lose 35 to 37 percent of the money that you pay in to health insurance versus paying for your own medical bills. The gap widens when you think that a responsible individual who pays the same amount into an investment account can actually MAKE money on the deal. What you're advocating is a mandatory guaranteed loss of money for everyone. In exchange everyone gets the dubious benefit of rationed care. In addition, you want this to be turned over to the government which has yet to demonstrate that they're efficient at anything at all.
If you 'make money' on car insurance in your lifetime, it means you're having way too many accidents or you had one really bad one where you likely killed a few people.
If you get more back from your homeowner's insurance than you pay, you likely had a catastrophic fire in which many of your irreplaceable personal items were lost.
And if you get enough payments back on healthcare insurance to cover your premiums, you have a significant illness that requires a lot of medicine to keep yourself healthy at the BEST.
And, let's not forget this recent incident. The fault of government intervention and the evils of Obamacare? I don't think so.
So, tell me what is going to be different?
See how that works?
It's not a matter of the free market or government interference. It's a matter of the fact that we don't live in a fairy land where a wizard can wave a magic wand and create more assets.
The use of the word RATION was a Frank Luntz inspired deception. It's an emotional word but it has an economic meaning. It frames the discussion in a fraudulent manner.
Are Republicans ready to run on the principle of rationing the war against Al Qaeda? Did you know we RATION national security? I recall el Rushbo decrying the rationing of bullets during the Clinton era for a Special Ops raid - until the unit's commanding officer spoke with him live and said the only rationing was to limit the weight each soldier carried so they weren't overburdened. We're only spending $700 billion a year on military.
You laid out the economic benefits of having EVERYONE part of the health plan which is how civilized countries do it. They don't pit one citizen against another, they recognize that national security begins with healthy citizens. By having everyone one participate in paying into the plan we provide the greatest pool of funding to spread the cost risk. It's no different than having everyone pay for military, we all benefit, some more than others. It's basic actuarial math. Bookies do the same.
I run a med device business and am intimately familiar with cost effectiveness and medical efficacy. The US has a screwed up medical reimbursement model that frustrates everyone but the board members at insurers.
While sitting in oncologist's offices waiting to confer I observe how many people are handling patient care vs how many are handling billing. It's about 2:1. That 33% overhead burden (less because their salaries are lower) is placed on medical providers by the insurers.
Due to our area of specialty the majority of the oncologists I see are treating non-medicare patients who are under 65. Medicare billing costs are a fraction of "private insurers" as noted by our reimbursement consultant.
Gotta go, my blood pressure is up again. I'm gonna write up this week's lab data for an investor presentation.
Sadly the rest of your post devolved into a partisan rant where for some reason you assumed that the government actually wants to serve the public. Republican or Democrat their only concern is for themselves. You can easily see this if you take a good look at who the different administrations are catering to. They all suck up to Big Oil, Big Business, Unions, etc. The only difference really is how much they suck up to the different groups. They could really care less whether you benefit, as long as they keep getting elected and can rake in the perks.
You are correct the parties don't care. We are in violent agreement. However, we the people need to quit allowing ourselves to be deceived by bright shiny objects in the modern day sleight of hand that passes for political discourse.
Blaming the government is not a solution. Government should be a collection of our neighbors asserting our desires. The organizations that want to blame government are doing so to eliminate checks and balances on their own power. Government does have a profound role to play in our nation, just as business has a role, charities, local community groups, etc. have roles.
There is a term I heard many years ago, "Regulatory Capture"
A special interest can be the 7 global oil companies, or it can be homeless advocates, or my local building permit department. Our challenge as citizens is to stay involved to prevent regulatory capture through checks and balances as the Founders sought.
Huh?
According to whom? Certainly not the doctors or people who actually understand health care and measure and chart such things. I do believe that American health care was ranked number 37 not too long ago actually.
Interesting when you see people blindly rush forward to defend Glen Beck of all people. You really get a sense of just how despicable and/or ignorant those people truly are.
As for your trouble with his "best in the world" comment the answer to your question "According to whom?" would be according to Glenn Beck.
Personally I also believe the American health care system is the best in the world and here's why. If people need life saving operations who are they coming to? Cuba, Argentina, Canada, Britain? No, they come to the U.S.A. because they know if anyone can pull it off we can. When a tough medical condition needs taking care of quickly the U.S.A. health care system is there to do it. Yes, sometimes a doctor in some other country discovers a new life saving procedure or medicine but by and large it's the good old U.S.A. That makes it the best in my book.
These people are sofa king stupid.
--------------------------------------
IMHO
One of the top 10 dumbest statements ever by one of the useful idiots on MMFA....and the bar has been set quite high....Congrats.
"Any education funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poor and the less fortunate. Excellent education is by definition redistributional."
Would Beck argue with that?
I learned long ago that a simple test of fairness is replacing a word with another word and determining if that clarified the meaning.
However, from what I've noticed since Reagan conservative dogma has decided public education should be eliminated, apparently because teachers organized into unions. It seems a non sequitur to me.