Free press? Not anymore.

[Cuba]

ABC news has sold out to Obama, literally. They are hosting their news broadcasts directly from the White House and plan a full day "infomercial" with Obama to sell his widely unpopular healthcare plan on June 24th. This is an all day event, not being paid for by the DNC, and is surrounded by nine days of further free promotion of the plan.

They are not allowing any dissenting, conflicting, or alternative views to the Obama plan. Period.

Obama championed a bipartisan debate on this incredibly important issue that will effect the lives and wealth of all Americans, but now has decided instead to ignore his own promises, as well as the alternative opinions of his own party, virtually all republicans, and the strongly dissenting opinions of the American Medical Association and the 250,000 doctors they represent.

This is scary on several levels. He lied again, and this is a pretty big one. Bipartisanship dies another death under the Obama administration, and forget about what those pesky DOCTORS think about healthcare, it's time for politics to take over. They get paid a lot anyway, so they should be punished. Also, he has eliminated the constitutional rights of a free press and is using Chavez tactics to push propaganda as news, and this coming from a news company begging for a federal bailout- conflict of interest? You decide. Do we need healthcare reform? Yes. Should it happen in a political vacuum devoid of necessary economic, moral, and logistical debate? Absolutely not under any circumstance.

ABC news is dead to me, they are the first to be officially written off as a purchased propaganda machine and enemy of the truth. Remember when new reporters actually reported on the facts? I miss that. Ethics in politics as well as journalism are rapidly disappearing in America, not that they were doing to well before, but this is just disturbing. My question to the Obama crowd: Just what would he have to do to make you concerned for your rights, where is the line you draw, or do you simply not care how far he goes? You do realise the precedents this is setting for the next conservative president, don't you?

 

[bmccrary]

Would you mind posting where you got your information from on this topic. I did a brief search and all I found on every website was this:

NEW YORK (AP) — ABC News will present a prime-time interview with President Barack Obama on health care issues next week.

The special will air June 24 at 10 p.m. Eastern, on two-hour tape delay. Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer will moderate the White House discussion with a live audience, also taking questions submitted by viewers. After a break for local news, the discussion will continue on "Nightline."

That morning, Sawyer will interview Obama for "Good Morning America." Gibson will anchor that evening's edition of "World News" from the White House Blue Room.

Obama has been carefully doling out access to broadcast networks. NBC had big ratings with its inside peek at the White House. Obama has also given interviews to CBS' "Face the Nation" and "60 Minutes."

ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Co.

This is a very "interesting" tatic obama is using and should be drawing more public attention. So if you dont mind, please post a link where your information is coming from.

Thanks

-bryan

 

[Cuba]

Would you mind posting where you got your information from on this topic. I did a brief search and all I found on every website was this:



This is a very "interesting" tatic obama is using and should be drawing more public attention. So if you dont mind, please post a link where your information is coming from.

Thanks

-bryan

Sure I'll try to dig up the original article, there have been a few updates since the public got wind of this. CYA and all that. Hang on I'll find it

 

[Cuba]

ABC promises Republicans health care coverage won't be Obama 'infomercial'

Here is a daily news article on it, I found another update that ABC is refusing to allow conservative groups from even buying a commercial spot during the broadcast, very scary stuff:

ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL
Wed Jun 17 2009 15:15:00 ET

ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!

The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.

Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding 'Prescription for America'.

Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:

"It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."

Developing...

 

[dark_isz]

It's only fair to post the entire article, Cuba. Editing it for effect is disingenuous.

ABC promises Republicans health care coverage won't be Obama 'infomercial'
By Richard Huff
DAILY NEWS TV EDITOR

Updated Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 7:31 AM
ABC News officials Tuesday defended a planned White House-set special on health-care reform from charges by the Republican National Committee that it would be nothing more than a "glorified infomercial" to promote a Democratic agenda.

"Poppy****" is what ABC officials said, though in more official terms.

The dustup began when officials at the Republican National Committee got wind that ABC News would devote extensive coverage to the topic, including an interview with President Obama and the First Lady on "Good Morning America," a White House-set telecast of "World News" and a one-hour prime-time town-hall type discussion with the President on health care on June 24.

"I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue," RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay wrote in a letter to ABC News President David Westin. The letter received prominent play Tuesday on the Drudge Report.

Not so fast, said ABC officials, who maintain all sides of the argument will be represented.

"In the end, no one watching, listening to, or reading ABC News will lack for an understanding of all sides of these important questions," ABC News Senior Vice President Kerry Smith said in a letter to the RNC.

ABC responded after it was suggested on the Drudge Web site that it had turned over control of the program to the Obama administration.

The audience and questions for the prime-time special will be selected by ABC and only ABC, according to a spokesman, and the goal is to have a balanced broadcast with various views.

"Our starting and ending point is to be informative and fair, thoughtful and thought-provoking," said an ABC News spokesman. "We will be picking the audience for the conversation. And the goal in picking an audience is not to come up with a roomful of people who agree with one another."

In his letter to McKay, the ABC exec said the RNC had set up "a number of false premises."

The RNC had no further statement, according to a spokeswoman.

The RNC's attack appears to be an example of how the party intends to fight the camera-friendly Obama administration, which just recently got two hours of prime-time coverage on NBC with Brian Williams, is now letting ABC into the White House, and is on television virtually every day with a presidential appearance.

Moreover, coverage of the First Lady as a style icon has all but reached the play-by-play level.

"I think it's pretty obvious politics," said Jay DeDapper, a veteran political reporter for WABC/Ch. 7 and WNBC/Ch. 4.

"When NBC essentially did a version of [MTV's] 'Cribs' in the White House a few weeks back under the guise of news, the GOP said nothing, leaving it to Jon Stewart to point out the obvious - there was no news value at all - it was a promotional stunt by NBC News accommodated by a White House happy to use the network to advance the administration's political goals.

"In this case," DeDapper said, "the RNC is finally doing what it should, from the political point of view, have done then."

[email protected]

 

[Cuba]

It's only fair to post the entire article, Cuba. Editing it for effect is disingenuous.

I posted the link to the article, then posted theentire article available from Drudge. What's your problem?

 

[dark_isz]

I posted the link to the article, then posted theentire article available from Drudge. What's your problem?

My problem is you intentionally quoted the Drudge article in your thread, but only linked to the ABC article, which was a direct response to the Drudge article. You would think if you were so concerned about presenting both sides of an argument, you would post either links to both articles, or complete quotes of both articles. You basically did exactly what you are attempting to chastise ABC for (even though they're not doing what you claim). And in a thread about Free Press, no less!

 

[bmccrary]

Thank you for posting up the information you two. I guess we will just have to wait and see what airs. Till then it is all speculation.

-bryan

 

[Cuba]

My problem is you intentionally quoted the Drudge article in your thread, but only linked to the ABC article, which was a direct response to the Drudge article. You would think if you were so concerned about presenting both sides of an argument, you would post either links to both articles, or complete quotes of both articles. You basically did exactly what you are attempting to chastise ABC for (even though they're not doing what you claim). And in a thread about Free Press, no less!

Actually the article seems equally damning, and I posted it first, not sure how that is an attempt at hiding it. Have you read it? The audience and quetions allowed are being prescripted by ABC prior to the program. It is scripted. By ABC. Who are making millions by being Obama's friend. The RNC will not be represented, nor will ABC allow dissenting opinions to be aired even during commercial breaks. 91% of respondants believe this is a glorified infomercial according to the poll linked to the article. 6% believe it will be fair and balanced.

 

[dark_isz]

Actually the article seems equally damning, and I posted it first, not sure how that is an attempt at hiding it. Have you read it? The audience and quetions allowed are being prescripted by ABC prior to the program. It is scripted. By ABC. Who are making millions by being Obama's friend. The RNC will not be represented, nor will ABC allow dissenting opinions to be aired even during commercial breaks. 91% of respondants believe this is a glorified infomercial according to the poll linked to the article. 6% believe it will be fair and balanced.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

I disagree with it, and that is my right.

Yes I did read the article. It plainly stated that the program would attempt to present a fair and balanced look at the proposed health care program.

As bmccrary stated, we'll have to wait and see, until then it's all speculation.

Additional Info:

I found an article on factcheck.org about an ad the Conservatives for Patients' Rights group has been running, I'm not sure if it's the same ad they tried to get aired during the health-care progam on ABC, but I still feel it's relevant to the discussion.

Link to the article: FactCheck.org: Government-Run Health Care?

This is the Summary, please follow the link for the in depth analysis.

Government-Run Health Care?
April 30, 2009
Updated: May 1, 2009
A conservative group's ad implies Congress is on its way to instituting a British- or Canadian-style health system.
Summary
A group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.:

The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn't proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea.

It claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is "the first step in government control over your health care choices." The legislation actually says the council isn't permitted to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies."

The ad quotes a Canadian doctor who has been critical of his country's system, but leaves out the fact that the doctor has praised other government-funded systems, such as those in Austria and France.

 

[Cuba]

Another update- ABC has aired positive views of Obama's healthcare plan by a 3 to 1 margin vs. opposing views:


Opponents of President Obama's proposed health care reform are blasting ABC News for refusing to air opposing ads during a prime time special next Wednesday, just as a new study finds ABC News coverage of the president's health care plan is favorable by a ratio of 3 to 1.

The prime time special -- called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" -- will be a nationally televised event during which Obama will answer questions presented by audience members selected by ABC News. The network has refused to accept advocacy ads during the hourlong show.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accused ABC News and anchor Charles Gibson of making Obama's case for "nationalized" health care "without any opportunity for opposing views to be aired.

In a fundraising e-mail aimed at raising nearly $100,000 to buy air time for a counterprogram, Steele said the RNC's request to add its views to the debate during the special was "flatly rejected" by ABC News.

"What are the Democrats and their media allies afraid of? The truth?" he asked in a fundraising letter to supporters. "That is outrageous! And we will not take it!"

But ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider told FOXNews.com that it has been a "longstanding" policy not to accept "advocacy" ads.

Schneider explained that the policy was established decades ago and only local ABC affiliates air issue ads.

"Local stations have different standards," he said, adding that ABC News refused to air Obama's infomercial the week before the presidential election in November because it did not meet the station's standards.

Since the president's inauguration in January, ABC's "World News" and "Good Morning America" have aired stories that feature Obama or supporters of his health care plan 55 times compared to 18 appearances by critics of his plan, according to a Business & Media Institute (BMI) analysis released Wednesday.

Schneider said during Wednesday's broadcast a roomful of people will present a broad range of opinions on health care and be able to ask the president questions. Viewers will also be able to submit questions via ABCNews.com.

"We're going to be producing a fair and open and honest debate about health care, which is vitally important to the country" he said. "The point of the debate is to hear from all sides."

Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights, is pushing ABC News to reconsider its ban on issue ads.

"It is unfortunate -- and unusual -- that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care program," he said in a statement, noting estimates that potential legislation costs at least $1 trillion of taxpayer money.

"The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision -- as of now -- to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public."

Some conservative bloggers are calling for people to boycott advertisers on ABC.

"All Americans who are opposed to a major media arm becoming a visible branch of the presidential political machine" should use the marketplace to voice their objection, one blogger wrote.

 

[Cuba]

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

I disagree with it, and that is my right.

Yes I did read the article. It plainly stated that the program would attempt to present a fair and balanced look at the proposed health care program.

As bmccrary stated, we'll have to wait and see, until then it's all speculation.

Additional Info:

I found an article on factcheck.org about an ad the Conservatives for Patients' Rights group has been running, I'm not sure if it's the same ad they tried to get aired during the health-care progam on ABC, but I still feel it's relevant to the discussion.

Link to the article: FactCheck.org: Government-Run Health Care?

This is the Summary, please follow the link for the in depth analysis.

Please explain to us how a mandated public health insurance plan competing with the private sector and forced on the doctors and hospitals against their will and at government set rates is not government run healthcare?

 

[dark_isz]

Please explain to us how a mandated public health insurance plan competing with the private sector and forced on the doctors and hospitals against their will and at government set rates is not government run healthcare?

I believe the explanation you are seeking is contained in the first six paragraphs of the in-depth analysis of the article I linked to on factcheck.org. Here is the direct text of the in-depth analysis:

Analysis
Conservatives for Patients’ Rights is, as its name indicates, a conservative group, and it’s also quite obviously not a proponent of government-run health care. Its minute-long ad was launched April 27 with what the group said was a month-long $1 million buy. (We've seen it on CNN several times this week.) CPR was launched this year and is led by Rick Scott, former head of Columbia/Hospital Corporation of America.

The ad states that government-run health care systems, in particular those in Britain and Canada, take control away from patients and ration health care. CPR is certainly entitled to state its own view. But the ad implies that the U.S. Congress wants to implement a health system like those in Britain and Canada. That's contrary to what President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have said.

Obama hasn’t called for such a government-run plan, also called a “single-payer" plan. In fact, he has flatly rejected it. The administration has said on the White House’s “Health Care” Web page (and previously on its transition site) that “President Obama and Vice President Biden believe” that government-run health care is “wrong.” And they also believe, the administration says, that the other extreme, “letting the insurance companies operate without rules,” is wrong. (The White House redesigned its health care page on April 30; a cached page with the quoted language is attached to this article.)

Obama has long said he would allow individuals or small businesses to buy insurance through a public plan – like the one now available to members of Congress. But nobody would be forced to drop his or her current insurance, and private plans would exist as they do now. This was the health care plan he promoted as a presidential candidate.

As we pointed out several times during the campaign, Obama's proposal was mischaracterized as a Canadian-style plan by his opponents. In Canada and Britain, all citizens have health care coverage, provided by the government and paid for with taxes. Only two Democrats ran for president on a single-payer platform: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who called for "Medicare for all," and former Sen. Mike Gravel. Clarification, May 1: Gravel has called his plan a “single-payer Health Care Voucher plan,” paid for by the government. But advocates have said it’s not a true single-payer plan, since private insurance would still play a role.

More recently, single-payer advocates have felt shunned by the White House and Congress as the debate over changing the U.S. system has begun. In early March, no single-payer advocate was invited to a White House summit on health care, leading reporter Russell Mokhiber to suggest that Obama's message to such groups was to "drop dead." A day before the summit, the White House extended invitations to the president of Physicians for a National Health Program (which had been planning to protest the event), and government-health-care-backer Rep. John Conyers. The Wall Street Journal noted that they were but two out of more than 100 attendees.

Furthermore, some of the CPR ad’s assertions are misleading.


Recycled Stimulus Claims

In the ad, Scott, chairman of CPR, speaks to the camera, saying that "Congress buried an innocent-sounding board" in the stimulus bill, called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. He says "it’s the first step in government-control over your health care choices." Actually, the stimulus legislation gives this council no authority to dictate insurance or medical policies.

We’ve written about the stimulus-created council before – and similar claims being made about it. The council is charged with supporting and coordinating comparative effectiveness research (something the government has funded since the late ‘70s). It is scientific research into which medical treatments are most effective and, in some studies, which are most cost-effective. Research may compare different drugs or different types of treatment; it can look at medical benefits, or benefits and costs.

To be sure, this type of research has its supporters and critics (see our previous article for more on that), but saying it will lead to “government control” over health care is Scott’s opinion. The stimulus legislation specifically says the council won’t issue any kind of health care requirements. At the end of the section describing the council, the legislation says:


American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. ... None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

The support CPR sent us for the ad also includes a press release from the Department of Health and Human Services that states: "The council will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment."

The group's public relations representative told us that while some critics of the ad have said the law prevents the council from limiting health care choices based on costs, the acting director of NIH had said the opposite. But NIH Acting Director Raynard Kington didn't say anything about putting cost-based restrictions on anyone's health care. Kington told the House Appropriations Committee that "if we receive high-quality applications that meet the definition for comparative effectiveness research that include cost we will fund them." Funding research into which treatments give the best results for the least money is one thing, and it is a big leap from there to a government decree restricting care. Anyway, NIH has been backing "cost-effectiveness research" for years. In a breakdown of funding categories, NIH estimates that it specifically supported about $50 million in such research in both 2007 and 2008.

In the House committee hearing (held March 26), Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas expressed concern that such research would "lead to rationed health care." Kington, a physician, responded: "I certainly understand the concern that any policy effort might severely restrict choices in whatever way. But comparative effectiveness research doesn't necessarily lead to that. Comparative effectiveness research can provide useful information to clinician, to patients and providers that make better decisions about what works under what circumstances for which patients and might actually complement the movement that you noted toward personalized medicine."


A National Health Board?

In the ad, Scott also says the federal council is “modeled after the national board that controls Britain’s health system.” That’s not quite right.

Britain does have a board that conducts comparative effectiveness research. It’s called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), and it “produces guidance on public health, health technologies and clinical practice.”
But NICE is a part of the National Health Service. And it is that larger board that actually controls the British system.

NICE also has much broader powers than the comparative research council created by the stimulus bill: For instance, NICE issues guidance for prevention efforts and treatment, and it approves drugs for use.

CPR's support for these claims is an editorial from the conservative Investor's Business Daily. The opinion piece repeats several false claims about the stimulus bill that we previously debunked. For one, it states that the federal council will "decide which treatments you should get," despite the fact that the law specifically forbids this.


Suspect Testimony

The CPR ad quotes two health experts from countries with national health care, Britain and Canada, criticizing the way their governments run the health care systems.

Dr. Brian Day, a Canadian surgeon who was president of the Canadian Medical Association last year, is quoted in the ad saying that "patients are languishing and suffering on wait lists" and "actually dying as they wait for care." Day is certainly not a fan of nationalized health care as it's practiced in his country, arguing that it's inefficient and doesn't provide enough care. But he's no fan of the U.S. system, either. "I do not profess to know how to reform the US system other than to opine that, in terms of value for money spent, yours is the only one in the free world that is worse than ours," Day told us. In a statement on his Web site, Day praises the health care systems of countries like Switzerland, Austria, France, Belgium and Germany, all of which have nationalized health care. The quotes CPR uses in its ad accurately reflect Day's opinion of Canadian health care, but the context implies that he opposes national health care in general. In fact, he believes that national health care as it's practiced in Canada needs serious reforms – reforms that will make it more universal, not less.

Britain's Dr. Karol Sikora, who is also quoted in the ad, has written several columns taking issue with the health care system in his country, too. He told us in an e-mail message that the ad was "fine by me."

Footnote: In the ad, Dr. Day correctly refers to a 2005 Canadian Supreme Court case, Chaoulli v. Quebec, in which the court found that "delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care." The United States also has preventable health-care-related deaths, though not necessarily from delays. A Commonwealth Fund study found the U.S. leading 19 industrialized countries in the number of deaths that could have been prevented by better health care – 110 deaths per 100,000 people, versus 103 in the U.K. and 77 in Canada. For more on U.S. versus Canadian health care speed and quality, see our Ask FactCheck on the subject.

– by Lori Robertson and Jess Henig

Update, May 1: CPR has posted a response on its Web site, which the group has also sent to us, claiming that parts of this article are "blatantly erroneous" and adding, "Accordingly, we request that you remove this article from the ‘Fact Check’ site and issue any retractions to other media outlets as necessary."

We think that's nonsense. We don't remove or retract any of our criticism of this group's very misleading ad.

CPR argues that its ad does not claim that Congress or Obama were trying to adopt any specific country’s health care system, but merely “points out the pitfalls of government-run health care.” We invite readers to look at the ad and judge the credibility of that for themselves. We said this ad suggests and implies that Congress is moving toward adopting a Canadian- or British-style system of government-run health care, and we think that judgment puts matters mildly.

CPR then goes on to argue that Congress and Obama really do favor a single-payer system after all. But those claims fall short as well. CPR says "several" members of Congress support single-payer health care and mentions one bill that it says attracted 76 House cosponsors. That’s still a minority of Democrats, and this same bill died quietly in committee in the last Congress. The current bill hasn’t moved from committee since late January when it was introduced. Sen. Max Baucus, who is spearheading the health care effort, has said that “single-payer is not going to get even to first base in Congress.”

CPR further states that Obama "has previously voiced support for a government single payer plan." That was true six years ago, but once again is not the whole story. Obama said at a 2003 AFL-CIO forum that he was “a proponent of a single-payer health care program,” adding, “that’s what I’d like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.” His stated position has changed over the years, however. He said in a 2007 magazine interview that he’d favor single-payer only if “starting from scratch” and that managing a transition from the current system to a single-payer system "would be difficult to pull off." And the fact remains, as we said in our article, the proposal he campaigned on was not a single-payer plan, and the administration recently said a government-run system is “wrong."

Correction, May 6: We originally wrote that PNHP had said Obama’s message to single-payer advocates was to “drop dead.” But the phrase was used in an article by Russell Mokhiber of the Corporate Crime Reporter newsletter; PHNP had posted his article on its site. We have changed the attribution above.

Sources
U.S. White House. “Health Care.” WhiteHouse.gov, accessed 29 April 2009.

Budoff Brown, Carrie. “Groups strategize for single-payer plan.” Politico.com, 28 April 2009, accessed 29 April 2009.

Corporate Crime Reporter. “Obama to Single Payer Advocates: Drop Dead.” Corporate Crime Reporter newsletter, 3 March 2009.

Goldstein, Jacob. “Invited to Summit, Single-Payer Group Cancels Protest.” WSJ Health Blog, Wall Street Journal, 5 March 2009, accessed 29 April 2009.

U.S. House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies. Hearing on National Institutes of Health: Budget, Implementation of Recovery Act, and National Children’s Study.” CQ Transcriptions, 26 March 2009.

“Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments.” Congressional Budget Office, Dec. 2007.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Pub. L. 111-5, 17 Feb. 2009.

U.S. National Institutes of Health. Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories. NIH.gov, 15 Jan. 2009, accessed 29 April 2009.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Press release. HHS Names Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. HHS.gov, 19 March 2009, accessed 29 April 2009.

Dr. Brian Day Web site, accessed 29 April 2009.

Brian, Day. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org, 28 April 2009.

Sikora, Karol. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org, 30 April 2009.

Nolte, Ellen and C. Martin McKee. "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis." Health Affairs. 8 Jan. 2008.

 

[dark_isz]

Another update- ABC has aired positive views of Obama's healthcare plan by a 3 to 1 margin vs. opposing views:


Opponents of President Obama's proposed health care reform are blasting ABC News for refusing to air opposing ads during a prime time special next Wednesday, just as a new study finds ABC News coverage of the president's health care plan is favorable by a ratio of 3 to 1.

The prime time special -- called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" -- will be a nationally televised event during which Obama will answer questions presented by audience members selected by ABC News. The network has refused to accept advocacy ads during the hourlong show.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accused ABC News and anchor Charles Gibson of making Obama's case for "nationalized" health care "without any opportunity for opposing views to be aired.

In a fundraising e-mail aimed at raising nearly $100,000 to buy air time for a counterprogram, Steele said the RNC's request to add its views to the debate during the special was "flatly rejected" by ABC News.

"What are the Democrats and their media allies afraid of? The truth?" he asked in a fundraising letter to supporters. "That is outrageous! And we will not take it!"

But ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider told FOXNews.com that it has been a "longstanding" policy not to accept "advocacy" ads.

Schneider explained that the policy was established decades ago and only local ABC affiliates air issue ads.

"Local stations have different standards," he said, adding that ABC News refused to air Obama's infomercial the week before the presidential election in November because it did not meet the station's standards.

Since the president's inauguration in January, ABC's "World News" and "Good Morning America" have aired stories that feature Obama or supporters of his health care plan 55 times compared to 18 appearances by critics of his plan, according to a Business & Media Institute (BMI) analysis released Wednesday.

Schneider said during Wednesday's broadcast a roomful of people will present a broad range of opinions on health care and be able to ask the president questions. Viewers will also be able to submit questions via ABCNews.com.

"We're going to be producing a fair and open and honest debate about health care, which is vitally important to the country" he said. "The point of the debate is to hear from all sides."

Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights, is pushing ABC News to reconsider its ban on issue ads.

"It is unfortunate -- and unusual -- that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care program," he said in a statement, noting estimates that potential legislation costs at least $1 trillion of taxpayer money.

"The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision -- as of now -- to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public."

Some conservative bloggers are calling for people to boycott advertisers on ABC.

"All Americans who are opposed to a major media arm becoming a visible branch of the presidential political machine" should use the marketplace to voice their objection, one blogger wrote.

Would you please share the source of this article?

 

[Cuba]

Would you please share the source of this article?

That was Fox

 

[Cuba]

I believe the explanation you are seeking is contained in the first six paragraphs of the in-depth analysis of the article I linked to on factcheck.org. Here is the direct text of the in-depth analysis:

Well that doesn't really answer the question. What is being proposed is a public health insurance plan that will compete with private insurance companies to "keep them honest". The problem is that a subsidized government run health insurer does not have the issue of profitability. They can and will sell insurance for less than it is worth, in otherwords they will drive out private companies that do need to be profitable to survive. Sort of like the outcome of Obama Motors, which can and will remain unprofitable due to its government subsidies. They will be able to sell cars at unprofitable prices since we taxpayers are footing the bill anyway. Ford is going to be in trouble. Another issue is that the current proposal includes mandatory acceptance by doctors at government set rates for care, in other words doctors will be paid substantially less money without a choice. Politicians will be deciding how much your healthcare will cost, and what your insurance will cover. They plan to pay for this in several ways: jack up your taxes, slash medicare and medicaid (sorry grandma), and make health insurance mandatory for all, even the young health people that have made the choice not to have it. In otherwords they have removed your freedom to chose, they have taken control of your health coverage, and control of what doctors will be paid. It is naive to think that a private insurance companies will be able to compete with a government subsidized, unprofitable competitor that doctors are not allowed to refuse.

Below is some info on the proposed taxes the democrats are mulling over right now to pay for the INITIAL $600 billion in tax increases they THINK it will cost <-- wait I thought he said they were LOWERING taxes for 95% of Americans??? I guess he misspoke during the entire campaign and the fight for the "stimulus" money, oh well we can't go holding him accountable for what he says or does, right? Just out of curiosity, do you think it is more likely that they are underestimating the cost at $600 billion over ten years to insure 50 million additional people or overestimating? Considering their accuracy with big numbers so far, and that even the democrats are saying it will top $1.2 trillion, I would ere on the side of underestimation. The funny thing is they keep saying the cost over 10 years, what happens after that? Back to uninsured? Hmmmmm...

From My way news article (note at the end where Dodd states he has no interest in bipartisanship):


news home | top | world | intl | natl | op | pol | govt | business | tech | sci | entertain | sports | health | odd | sources | local
Presidential • Cabinet • Congress • Supreme Crt • Other US Govt



House eyes new taxes as senators pare health bill


WASHINGTON (AP) - Early work on the ambitious health care overhaul the Obama administration is seeking has exposed the kinds of in-house fights that typify just how hard it will be to get meaningful legislation this year. Case in point: A proposal to help bankroll universal health coverage with a dime-a-can increase in the price of soft drinks.

House Democrats have lots of potential targets for higher taxes as they aim to expand health care coverage to reach the roughly 50 million that experts say are uninsured.

Also under consideration are higher alcohol taxes, increases to the Medicare payroll tax and a value-added tax, a sort of national sales tax, of up to 1.5 percent or more.

The list of options being weighed by the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, and obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, aims to raise some $600 billion over 10 years to partially pay for President Barack Obama's goal of overhauling the nation's health care system to tame costs and cover the 50 million uninsured.

The final price tag for that effort could top $1 trillion, with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid covering the rest of the cost.

The tax options include:

- Increasing the price of soda and other sugary drinks by 10 cents a can.

- Applying a potential 2 percent income tax increase to single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000.

- A new employer payroll tax could target 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures.

- Taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels - a less likely option but one that still is in the running.

House Democrats planned to unveil a draft of their sweeping health care bill Friday. It would require all individuals to obtain health insurance and force employers to offer health care to their workers, with exemptions for small businesses. A new public health insurance plan, strongly opposed by Republicans, would compete with private companies within a new health care purchasing "exchange" where Americans could shop for coverage. Government subsidies would help the poor buy care.

The draft, being released at a news conference of the chairmen of the three committees with jurisdiction - Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor - was not expected to mention the potentially unpopular tax options.

On the other side of the Capitol, two Senate committees were going in separate directions on their health care bills. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee spent a second full day working on an expansive bill reflecting Democratic priorities, while members of the Finance Committee were laboring to produce legislation that could attract Republican support.

To that end Finance Committee senators were looking at leaving a new public insurance plan out of their bill, instead creating nonprofit co-ops to offer insurance in competition with private companies, according to an outline obtained by The Associated Press. The co-ops could accept federal loans for startup operations, but would have to repay the money.

Struggling to pare their bill from an earlier $1.6 trillion cost estimate to about $1 trillion over 10 years, Finance Committee members also were looking at making federal subsidies available to help families with incomes of up to 300 percent of poverty, or $66,000, purchase insurance. An earlier proposal set the level at 400 percent of poverty, or $88,000.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., reviewed the plans behind closed doors Thursday with a group of senators he deemed "the coalition of the willing." Republicans present were top committee Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

"We're getting closer and closer," Baucus said during a break in the meeting. "There's no doubt in my mind we're going to have a bipartisan bill."

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who's presiding over the Health Committee work session, dismissed bipartisanship as an end in itself.

"My goal here is to write a good bill. My goal is not bipartisanship," said Dodd, who has taken the committee reins in the absence of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who's being treated for brain cancer.

 

[Cuba]

Here is an article on what Obama's own doctor thinks about the current plan:

Obama's Doctor Knocks ObamaCare - Forbes.com

In summary, he doesn't like it. Not that I agree with his reasons, but the article raises some interesting questions. This doctor feels that we should do a Canada style single payer system, pay specialists 1/3 of what we do now (bargain brain surgery) and pay himself a whole lot more than we do today- weird huh? What we do agree on is the idea that we could collectively be saving a lot of money by eliminating waste within the current system.

The system in place isn't effecient. We have fantastic quality of healthcare here, but poor VALUE. The reasons are systemic and motivational.

1- Doctors get sued for malpractice. There is no limit to what a judge may decide to award, and who can really put a value on a human life anyway? The cost for doctors to insure themselves against this is very high. This cost is passed to us, the insured. Some cases are legitimate (i.e. the doctor failed to do his duty within reason, such as showing up hungover for a heart surgery that goes bad). He should be sued, the victim/victim's next of kin should be compensated, and maybe he should be criminally charged or have hhis license revoked. Many cases are not legitimate (i.e. the doctor failed to perscribe a massive, costly battery of tests, scans, etc. because the patient was short of breath. The patient had an undiagnosed severe condition that worsened and cause death/disability). This isn't exactly the doctor's fault, but in order to protect themselves, doctors will tend to overperscribe tests, medications, etc. to CYA lest they get sued into oblivion by a patient.

2- Doctors get paid by performing treatments, tests, perscribing drugs, and performing operations. Double whammy here. A doctor's choice is to a) tell a patient to take two asprin and call in the morning, or b) go to the hospital, take blood tests, ct scans, see a specialist, and take these costlt drugs. In scenario B the doctor has just made money AND covered themselves from a liability standpoint in the slim chance that it was something serious.

The problem isn't a lack of patients, or a greedy insurance company. In part it is the greedy patients and ambulance chasing lawyers so quick to sue for millions (when someone wins a malpractice suit it is actually the insured that pay for it, us), it's the drug companies that make a ton of money by overperscribing doctors, doctors are incentivised to overperscribe as well, and it is also a covering tactic to reduce their perceived liability. In short, the system isn't very good when it comes to value.

By shoving an additional 50 million people into a system such as this, without making the necessary changes to curb this waste (Obama has flatly refused to address the malpratice issue and has no real plan for the doctor motivation issue other than to pay them less- which would only act to INCREASE the level of overperscription, unless of course the government officials were the one's deciding what is necessary) you will drastically increase the spending on healthcare, drastically increase the number of proceedures and perscriptions (both necessary and unecessary) coming from the massive influx of those who suddenly have free healthcare benefits, AND we haven't dealt with the fact that we don't have an adequate infrastructure or enough GP's in the country to effectively service that many additional patients. Currently these folks do have health coverage in the form of the ER. In America we already take care of you if you have an emergency no matter what, and yes those of us that are insured do pay for it, the cost is passed on to us.

I don't have an answer, but I don't think it is what the congressional democrats are unilaterally proposing. We do need healthcare reform, but I have zero confidence in the federal government being the best provider of it. Competition come to mind here, with some legislative changes to curb the watse from overperscription and nuisance lawsuits. What if hospitals were like businesses, what if they offered specials, what if you could price shop for services and operations, what if you had to co pay the whole way? What does the patient care if they just had $6000 in unecessary tests if it won't cost them anything? What if they had to decide whether the felt it was necessary with their own wallet? What if the doctor made their recommendations on tests but it was the patient who decided the level of risk they would accept? If there was a very slim chance of a problem but it would cost $10,000 to find out, and cost you personally $500, would you do it? Would you rather have the right to decide, or hand that right over to the government? What do you guys think?

 

[Cuba]

Well since I don't have TV currently I didn't watch this infomercial. I don't think I would have either, for fear of contributing to the ratings. But I did read this:

ABC ObamaCare Special Turns Into Presidential Filibuster

Disgusting. Not a single right wing question or comment, no one holding him to task, allowing him to ramble on and duck questions, "mediators" that let him do whatever he wanted rather challenging him. In short, it sounds like exactly what everyone expected it to be.

The phony, staged questions that are popping up in presidential press conferences are another gross display of our current lack of free press. This guy owns these people, they will do anything to get him on their network. With their ratings absolutely in the tubes they are selling their integrity for a sugar high that will eventually leave them bankrupt (and probably bailed out).

 

[Cuba]

ABC's White House special struggled for viewers--The Live Feed

It got TERRIBLE ratings. Pretty embarassing.

 

[The Toecutter]

ABC's White House special struggled for viewers--The Live Feed

It got TERRIBLE ratings. Pretty embarassing.

I didn't watch it,but I learned alot from yall's debate....