I'm In the Stupid Aisle

Okay, Chana Joffe-Walt actually said, "I'm in the the soup aisle" as she spoke to her partner in inanity, David Kastenbaum on their Planet Money story on this Friday's ATC. NPR Check reader, Grumpy Demo, picks apart the Planet Monkeys latest effort in the Q Tips below and in the comments section of the NPR story:

I don't think NPR has ever packed more stupid into any single story, here's just a sample:

No. 1 There is no "Rule" that the same goods have to have the same price. This is not taught in ANY economics or business class. If you reporters weren't apparent economic illiterates and had attended at least one economics class you would have known that price is a function of supply and demand. In fact, this proves this imaginary NPR "Rule" is nonsense.

No. 2 The reporters compare prices of canned pasta and announce that a price of $1.00 is pretty close to a price of $1.09. NO IT'S NOT. There's a 9% difference in price, which is a significant difference (Would your reporters take 9% less in pay because its "pretty close"?) Less than a minute into the report, and the "Rule" doesn't work.

No.3 Most hospital are not businesses, they are non-profits, so contrary to your reporter's contention, their goal is to serve the public not achieve maximum profits.

No.4 Why does no one on Planet Money have the foggiest grasp of the concept in "inelastic demand"? Which proves that comparing health care to canned pasta is bogus.

No.5 Why does Planet (worship the)Money ALWAYS frame health economics terms of Right Wing Freeper world view? On Planet Money (and NPR) there is absolutely no moral component to health care. Which seems to explain your reporter being perplexed as to why an emergency room can't turn anyone away.

Please, please find someone at that understands basic math, I've given up on any hope of you finding someone that understands economics.

Doesn't NPR have editors?

Ouch...

The All Clear Has Sounded

Yesterday, I heard for the first time on NPR about how the public option has "widespread public support." Here's Melissa Block on Tuesday's ATC:

"Senators on the finance committee defeated attempts to add the government run option to health care legislation - that's despite the fact that it has widespread public support beyond Capitol Hill."

Talk about too little, too late. All summer while rabies was sweeping townhalls and tea parties, NPR never mentioned "widespread public support." I guess once the Insurocrats have passed their pharma/insurance industry overhall and Pres. Obama has signed it, NPR will also mention that other thingy that has wide public support...uh...what do you call that...oh, yeah, single payer.

Hello Darkness My Old Friend

(source of graphic and source of post title - enjoy)

If you watch or listen to Democracy Now! you know about the latest study on insurance and mortality in US adults. It's no big deal, just some wacky research indicating that tens of thousands of people (45,000 actually) in the US die every year because they don't have health insurance.

NPR is definitely challenged when it comes to counting, math and timekeeping - though they are the gold standard for tallies that comfort the powerful and celebrate death from the skies. But some numbers are just so confusing and troublesome, why deal with them at all - especially if it might ruffle the death health insurance industry? Consider the old, way-back-then study of 2002 from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) which determined that, in the US, 18,000 people a year die from lack of health insurance, or the Urban Institute 2008 update that raised the mortality estimate to 22,000. And now in the thick of the health insurance reform debates and policy maneuvers, there is a new study doubling the mortality estimate to 45,000.

So how has NPR done on covering these deadly numbers? Lets consult the NPR death panel search engine:

On the 18,000 fatalities:

• Morning Edition - nothing.
• All Things Considered - Dan Schorr mentioned it.
• Weekend Edition Saturday - zilch.
• Weekend Edition Sunday - nada.

On the 22,000 figure:

• Morning Edition - zero.
• All Things Considered - zip.
• Weekend Edition Sunday - nothing
• Weekend Edition Sunday - not a peep.

On the 45,000 figure:

• For all NPR programs. Got a guess? It's less than one, but greater than negative one (sort of).

To be fair to NPR - 45,000 is a pretty puny number compared to that big, scary TRILLION number which does get lots of attention from the journalists at NPR when it comes to health care.

Tea Party Radio

Fox News makes no bones about endorsing the extreme-right, proud-to-be-stupid Tea Party Express, but NPR is a bit more subtle in its pro-Tea Bagger coverage. Over the last three days it has provided this reactionary tour frequent, uncritical broadcasting time:

On Sunday's Weekend Edition Liane Hansen introduces NPR's Jay Brady who is traveling with this road show. In a completely uncritical report Brady makes these statements:

• "Well, I've been to four rallies now, in two days, and talked with quite a few people. Most of them, I'd say they're over 40 years old, and in general, they appear to be folks who work pretty hard for a living." (unlike the dirty hippie crowd who show up at antiwar functions).
• "And they talk about all kinds of issues....But I think the one thing that just about everyone had in common is that they feel like they're not being heard." (No mention of the really thoughtful signs about "dictator" Obama, and his birth certificate.)
• [describing the "mood" at the rallies] "You know, they feel a lot like a small county fair. People are serious about what's being discussed at the rallies, but it seems like they're also there to have fun." (I can imagine time traveling Brady using the same description reporting on early 20th century lynchings.)

In case you didn't get enough of this poison tea, Jeff Brady is back on Monday morning, giving more love to these hard working, honest volk who no one listens to:

• "A political action committee from California is sponsoring the bus tour...the Our Country Deserves Better PAC. The goal is to bring together different groups concerned about what he calls heavy handed government policies."
• "At the tea party rally, there were few, if any, fans of Mr. Obama and plenty of critics."
• "...There were also people holding signs criticizing government involvement in health care and excessive federal spending. The scene a few hours away in Ely was similar. This is a place where people are comfortable using language most others left behind with the end of the Cold War." [followed by a woman claiming "We don't need a communist nation. And that's what Obama's taking us to."]
• "Tea Party Express Chief Strategist Sal Russo says people, who come to these rallies aren't super focused on specific issues. He says they are motivated by broad ideals."
• "A lot of people attending these rallies say they feel left out, as if no one in Washington is listening to them anymore."

Of course Brady and the Morning Edition hosts offer no check to the utter insanity of claims of socialism or communism - on the contrary NPR lends respectability and legitimacy to the extremist ideology of the Tea Bagger movement through Brady's repetition of the claim to "broad ideals" and his earlier remarks about participants being "serious about what's being discussed."

Still not sold on the salt-of-the-earth charm and idealism of these Tea Party know-nothings? Well, Tuesday evening's spotlight on the singing darling of the tea party mob should win you over for sure. Gosh, but golly, not only is he spouting the Obamunist-communist stupidity and encouraging populist reactionary zeal, but "he's black, has a ponytail and wears an earring"! Brady assures us that

"what's surprising about Marcus is that while he can be a little pointed at times, he also appears to have a lot of fun" and "Marcus knows what he believes and he's sticking with it."

One really disturbing angle of NPR's favorable coverage of the public face of this movement, is how it completely ignores how similar the ideology and rhetoric of the Tea Bagger movement is to the resurgent militia movement. Also, as readers have noted, compare this positive saturation coverage of the Tea Party reactionaries to NPR's negative and non-coverage of the anti-war movement and you can't help but notice how far to the right NPR's editorial preferences lean...

The Art of Framing at NPR

There are many ways you could frame the role of Senator Kent Conrad, one of the gang of six senators who are working very hard to preserve the profitable dominance of private health insurance in the US. A report marvel at why six senators representing less than 3% of the US population is controlling the fate of health insurance reform. A serious report might look at the obscene amounts of campaign cash flowing into these senators coffers from the for-profit health insurance industry and its allies.

Ah but not on NPR. Yesterday, on Friday's ATC Andrea Seabrook explains Kent Conrad's opposition to the pubic option and offer of health insurance co-ops as the result of his expertise on fighting government deficits and his commitment to centrism and bipartisanship.

Before introducing Seabrook's report, Siegel sets the tone, "Conrad's focus on the deficits and debt makes him a pivotal figure in the health care debate." After that it's all Seabrook:

"he's keenly aware of the long-term problems the United States faces when it comes to government spending and the national debt. And when it comes to health care? Conrad sees big, new problems with the idea of big, new government programs."

"Democratic leaders could ram a health care bill through the Senate; they'd have to use a special set of rules known as reconciliation. Conrad knows this; he just thinks it's a terrible idea."

"Now, because Conrad is at the nexus of budget expertise and political centrism, Senate Democratic leaders and committee chairs asked him to devise a plan that could pass the Senate and get some Republican votes."

"Health care co-ops would be to private insurance companies what credit unions are to private banks. The co-op would provide health insurance, but it would be a nonprofit business owned by its members. A big plus, says Conrad, they'd be a lot cheaper in the long-term. The idea already has support from centrists of both parties."

"He could end up being the guy who represented the rational middle or the guy who killed real reform."

There's just one little, tiny problem with all this emphasis on expertise, budget deficits and BIG, NEW PROBLEMS, great co-ops, and winning Republican votes: it doesn't wash. First there is no consensus that deficit spending is a bad thing. As far as the danger of a BIG, NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM costing sooooo much more money than what we've got - that's a factually challenged assertion, too. But Health Insurance Co-ops are a good thing, like Credit Unions, right? Wrong, they are a sham. Well, at least the bit about getting Republicans on board makes sense, yes? Wrong again.

Death Panels and Pretty Militant

Cokie "but the Democrats" Roberts was on this morning to provide "analysis" with Steve Inskeep. Here are highlights:

Roberts: "and they [Republicans] make a big deal about something that distracts and frightens the voters like those so-called death panels - then the Democrats drop that and Republicans find something else to object to...."

Inskeep: "What about President Obama's core supporters, they've been pretty militant - I think that's a fair word - in saying that there must be a public option."

I'm enjoying many of the comments under NPR stories - a lot of listeners are dogging NPR for its lousy work. This story was no exception. I'd encourage all critics of NPR to post there, too.

Of course NPR has failed to provide any meaningful coverage of what a public option would actually be and how it would work - and why it is not "militant" but the bare minimum to any meaningful reform of the health insurance system in the US.

Bedeviled

Scott Horsley states the following this morning:

"President Obama complained to Time magazine recently that the press had...reduced the story to a conventional battle between government-run health care and the free market....Mr. Obama has tried to substitute his own conventional narrative: in this one the insurance industry is cast as the VILLAIN. (soundbite of Obama) 'The truth is we have a system today that works well for the insurance industry but it doesn't always work well for you.' That makes insurance companies a convenient if not altogether appropriate foil."

Consider Horsely's verbal sleight of hand. He equates a completely false distortion - characterizing the tepid Democratic health reform proposals as "government-run health care" in opposition to "the free market" - with a completely fact-based statement - "we have a system today that works well for the insurance industry but it doesn't work well for you [the public]." Yes, the system works well (insurance profits more than quadrupled from 2000 to 2007) but not for the public which pays more for less and suffers about 22,000 deaths a year from the insurance industry's commitment to not covering people. How could anyone cast them as the villain?

Having set up this falsehood, Horsely turns to health insurance industry vampire representative, Karen Ignani (no stranger at at NPR - see March 7, 2009 and June 13, 2009), so she can claim how wrong Obama's statement is because the mob her industry supports "reforms."

Horsely ends this report with a bit of moralizing against the Democrats, noting that "Brookings scholar Hess thinks it's unfortunate the Democrats have chosen to demonize health insurance companies." Demonizing the health insurance companies, now why would anyone do that?

* I'm not sure but I think the Bosch painting shows claims adjusters at work in the offices of Blue Cross or Aetna.

Free Pass for Right-Wingers

Linda Wertheimer hosted Senator Kyl for a stop-health-insurance-reform commercial this morning.

Here's Kyl repeating chief insurance lobbyist, AHIP's talking points (pdf. file):

"91% of people, according to a Rasmussen survey, say that they have insurance and 84% of them rate their insurance as excellent or good."

That 91% should have raised a flag with any decent interviewer. A simple calculator shows that with at least 47 million Americans without health insurance divided by a population of 307 million means that 15.3% are without. The highest possible number of insured would then be 84.7% - and with the jobless rate spiking that 47 million is probably closer to 50 million. Of course, if you are a Fox News Poll lover (pdf. file) then you would get the EXACT numbers that Kyl was spouting - what a surprise! The Rasmussen poll in question gives no number for the insured and does claim a rise to 80% of covered respondents rating their insurance good to excellent a rise from 70% back in May. I've yet to meet anyone who pays a lot for private health care say they are satisfied with it - so I'd be curious to see numbers teased out for those with generous employer provided coverage or Medicare.

It must be reassuring to be a radical free-marketeer, corporate blood-sucker, warmonger or miscreant going on NPR - knowing that you can say or make up anything and never have it questioned.

Going Ga-Ga Over $100 Billion a Year

If you go to the historical budget information of the US government and look at Section 3, table 3.1 (Excel file) you can see budget figures for "National Defense" over the years [does not include veteran spending]. Way back in 1978 the spending for the war department topped 100 billion dollars and continued to grow over the years. I'd say that means that well over a trillion dollars was dumped into the war-hole between 1978 and 1988 [not to mention that with the FY 2010 $533.8 billion request from Obama-Gates [official DOD pdf letter] - it now takes just two years to officially get to that magical trillion-plus number for keeping us safe!]

But if a watered down pathetic bit of health insurance reform legislation might cost $1 trillion over the next ten years then OMG! even chief planet monkey David Kastenbaum says, "I really can't wrap my head around a trillion dollars." He explains that it's "six times NASA's budget..."

At least Linda Wertheimer has the sense to ask, "How would it compare to the Iraq War?" But David's not going down that road and dismisses it with a simple "100 billion a year is roughly, ballpark what we are spending on the Iraq War." God forbid he mention that the old Iraq War will probably cost a bit more than that - at least by a factor of 2 if not 5!

As readers have noted, Dean Baker has been an astute critic of NPR's economic monkey business and he has already noted the silliness of NPR's fixation on the figure of a trillion.

Got to love the comment under the piece on NPR's website by Madchen Vapid who writes, "Dear Planet Monkey, What does 1 trillion bananas look like?"

It's What's On the Table

Back on June 8, 2009 NPR's ombudsman wrote, "I'm a big fan of blogs and of reading listener opinions. I plan on updating my own blog more frequently over the next few months." Alicia Shepard's more frequent posts have been illuminating, to say the least. If you want to get a glimpse into how establishment media (in this case NPR) justifies its subservience to power Shepard's posts are a great place to start:

• In June, there was her attempt (and even worse follow-up attempt) to justify NPR's refusal to call torture torture when carried out by US agents.
• On July 8th, Shepard claims that an insultingly stupid piece about the health care "public plan" was a "laudable attempt."
• By July 14th Shepard touts NPR's excellence based on - not content, accuracy, courage, or depth, but - the perceptions of a listeners survey! For Shepard, it's all about views: "...most listeners who contact us appear to fit into the liberal category, and many complain that NPR's reporting does not mirror their views."
• On July 20th Shepard is praising Cronkite for making Watergate a story when others wouldn't because he "sensed there was something more to the story than a third-rate burglary." It never occurs to Shepard that such praise rings pretty hollow when her employer can't even sense "something more" when the story is right in their face (e.g. fixed intelligence, vote caging, FISA lawbreaking, detainees tortured to death, etc).
  

Finally take a look at Shepard's recent attempt to justify NPR's hostility to the single-payer health option for the United States. Here is the excerpt that explains how the NPR sausage gets made:

"The decision not to devote a lot of attention to single-payer, I'm told, is based on pragmatism.

'This issue is not getting a lot of attention from NPR because it's simply not on the table in Congress,' said Julie Rovner, NPR's lead reporter covering the health care overhaul."

And that brings us to this morning's report from...yep...Julie Rovner about "Providing Better Health Care for Less Money." This is the second major feature (the first was on June 29, 2009) that NPR has devoted to the supposed wonders of providing great Insurance Industry Care for less money. A quick look at the sources for this morning's report shows that the Insurance Industrial Complex definitely knows how to set the table.

Rovner's star expert in the report is Don Berwick of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). On NPR's website, you also can see that the other experts for this report were Elliot Fisher of the Dartmouth Institute (him again), Dr. Atul Gawande of Brigham and Women's Hospital (a founding member of the Blue-Cross loving Partners Healthcare - a "non-profit" association whose CEO pulled down a cool $1.37 million in 2007 - from IRS 990 at Guidestar)

Looking into Berwick and the IHI is also eye-opening. Take a look at the lower part of the IHI page describing "donors" to its programs - its 5 million lives campaign received over $5 million from Blue Cross and Blue Shield. IHI has also been pretty good to Don Berwick - to the tune of $637,000 in 2008 - from IRS 990 at Guidestar)

NPR's health care coverage is definitely based on pragmatism - it just all depends what (and how much) is on the table.

Rare Praises for NPR

I was going to write about yesterday's deceitful and stupid report on the CIA by Pamela Hess of the AP (Media Bloodhound and Left I on the News often expose the AP for being the lazy rebroadcaster of US government propaganda that it is) or Juan Forero's (the reporter who couldn't read straight) pro bono work this morning for the owners of Venezuelan plantations (farms in Forero-speak) or Inskeep's coffee-clutch against the public health insurance option with the PR man for Wellpoint the parent company of a foundation that just happens to be one of NPR's biggest annual donors (hint: it's the California Endowment).

(From NPR's 2005 [most recent] Annual Report -PDF file)

But heck, it's summer and let's give credit where credit is due. First to Robert Siegel (there I said it!) who, on Monday's ATC, presented the Alito remarks about empathy as a counter to the attacks on Sotomayor's remarks about empathy. Siegel was interviewing the twittering Chuck Grassley of Iowa and confronted him with the Alito statements AND even asked a few follow-ups when Grassley tried to squirm out of making a complete ninny of himself. It was delicious.

More importantly, this morning Peter Kenyon actually covered the story of the 25 IDF soldiers who have documented the systematic war crimes of Operation Cast Lead. NPR actually sent a reporter on the ground in Gaza and talked to a Gazan who lost his parents to Israeli shooters in a case similiar to one related by an Israeli soldier. Several commenters on the web site of the story thanked NPR for reporting this - one who summed it up well as a commendable "baby step."

Between Fred Thompson and the American Enterprise Intstitute

Reporting this morning for the private health insurance lobby, NPR's Julie Rovner gets very, very basic:

"The health care cost debate pretty much comes down to this: 'You can't cut costs without hurting someone.'"

How's that for analysis. And to back it up we get a little Meet the Press sound-bite from Fred Thompson (yes him): "The only way to really save cost is to have rationing or it can be done by a cram down by the government and take it out of the hides of doctors hospitals."

Rovner's report mainly serves to highlight and promote the research of Elliott Fisher of the Dartmouth Institute. The big deal is that Fisher has found that some areas in the US with lower cost prices for health care have better outcomes. Funny thing is that on June 11, 2009 NPR featured this exact research. An interesting thing not mentioned on NPR is the chief "partners" of the Dartmouth Institute. On the list are

• Wellpoint Foundation
• Aetna Foundation
• United Health Foundation

I do smell a conflict of interest, eh?

Rovner fills out the report by going to a solid centrist - Len Nichols (no single payer, he) - of the New America Foundation (as far left as NPR dare venture) , and then the wrap up is provided by Joe Antos of the far right AEI who concludes that real change to health care is a cultural/behavioral issue more than a cost issue.

NPR Does Health Care Right - Far Right That Is

A few days ago a reader (h/t to Masbrow) mentioned an interesting article by Felice Pace in CounterPunch. Pace does a little exploring with the NPR search engine to see how poor, old single payer fares there. He notes that "...stories mention single payer. [but] I can find no NPR news reports or other shows which actually focused on single payer or on the movement to achieve it."*** This prompts him to ask, "Why is NPR refusing to report on what 60% of US citizens and the majority of health professionals want?" To answer that question he did a little more digging at NPR and found that (as of 2006) NPR's financial health care was mighty dependent on some heavy hitters in insurance industry:

• $1 million+: Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, Prudential Financial
• $500,000 - $999,999: Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Allstate Insurance Company, Northwestern Mutual Foundation
• $250,000 - $499,999: AARP, The Hartford Financial Services Group, UnumProvident
• $100,000 – $249,999: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Single payer may be off the table, but when money sets the table, public radio isn't so different from our trusty public servants.

***A slight correction: I found that by searching "Physicians for a National Health Program" there was one relatively recent (Dec. 24, 2008) report that focused on the single-payer plan; however, the whole point of that Christmas Eve coal-in-the-stocking from NPR was how single-payer is neither as popular nor realistic as supporters claim. It featured Baucus and Rep. Pete Stark poo-pooing single-payer and Rovner relying on one dud poll to claim that "while single-payer has won big majorities in many polls, in this one it came in dead last" (How's that for unbiased?).

Now that Obama and the Dem's sadly watered-down health care proposal is working its way through the bowels of Congress [and still facing attacks from the GOP, PhRMA, and insurance industry because of the public option] I thought it might be worthwhile to put NPR's most recent health care stories into perspective and see whose viewpoints (i.e. $$$) hold sway.

My poor little post of last Friday - noting how TWO features on Morning Edition flogged the public option - had barely seen the light of cyberspace when the next morning NPR felt obliged to give oft-consulted Karen Ignagni of AHIP ("enemy number one" of single payer) unchallenged airtime to denounce the public option with the help of Scott Simon. Instead of responding here - I dropped a comment (reprinted at the end of this post) on NPR's site.

Since then things have only gotten worse. On Sunday morning Rovner claimed that "the bill coming up this week is going to be the most left-leaning if you will...could provide subsidies to people earning up to 5 times the poverty level...so this may be the farthest to the left of all." With that salvo, is it any wonder that on Tuesday morning Steve Inskeep was all over Kathleen Sebelius with the Republican talking points about the public option and denouncing single-payer:

• "I want to understand this number because...Republicans have said, quoted a study, way over a hundred million Americans...so what's your number?"
• "Just the numbers you mention...this option, this public option, if it passes as you imagine is going to be vast."
• "....people in Congress are talking about putting some kind of limit on this public plan...what kind of limits are you prepared to expect..."
• "...would you accept a limit that would say this is just not going to be a national health insurance at some point in the future...?"
• "Can you say flat out it's just never going to be single-player health insurance....?"

This morning Inskeep was at it again in a chat with Juan Williams. After Williams claimed "what the government's doing may in fact drive up the cost of health care" and touted a CBO report alleging that the Dem/Obama plan would "cause some people to lose their insurance" - Inskeep played a clip of the Sebelius interview in which she calls the potential for single-payer insurance a "draconian scenario." He then asks Williams, "Has the White House found any effective way to prove a negative here; to say this is not going to become creeping socialism?" [I swear to God, I'm not making this stuff up.]

You might think I'm selectively picking only the anti-public plan stories or the anti-single player reports. If you can find any featuring a positive tilt on either the public-plan or single-player, let me know; when I searched NPR to see if even a few of the major proponents of progressive health care reform have been featured in the last two weeks, here's what I found:

• Progressive Democrats of America - nothing
• California Nurses Association -nada
• Physicians for a National Health Plan - zilch

Alas, seems that real health care reform at NPR is DOA...

[My comment left at NPR below Scott Simon's schmooze with Karen Ignani]:

Congratulations NPR - as a "public" news station you have done a great service by providing a voice to the voiceless: the health insurance industry which lacks the funds and connections to get it's message out. After yesterday's Republican slant on the public plan from Liasson, Rovner, and Inskeep - you showed a brave commitment to your mission statement ["'Fair' means that we present all important views on a subject."] by giving yet more airtime to the insurance lobby this morning.

Methinks it's time to tell your member stations to stop begging for support from the public (whose opinions don't seem to amount to much on NPR) and to just plug into the money stream from the insurance industry that you are so loyal to.

NPR and the Biggest Obstacle to Health Care Legislation

Guess what the biggest obstacle to health care legislation is?

Could it be the mountains of cash being being poured into Congress by the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies so that they can override public opinion [and physician opinion] favoring government run health insurance? Or might it be obstructionists like Senator Baucus and "moderate" Democrat, Senator Kent Conrad? (or Evan Byah or Ben Nelson or ...)

According to NPR and Mara Liasson (...and PhRMA) the option of a public (government-run) plan "has emerged as the biggest obstacle to health care legislation." And why is it an obstacle? Because, Liasson explains, "Republicans oppose a public plan, so does the American Medical Association...and even more perilous for the President, so do many moderate Democrats in Congress..."

As if Mara Liasson's Friday morning take on a public plan wasn't enough, NPR followed her report with Julie Rovner and Steve Inskeep providing their slant on the matter. Inskeep repeats the Republican argument about "this government plan [that] is going to offer a very nice service, which is good, but it's going to be cheaper than private insurers can manage" and is "actually going to damage, as Republicans say, damage my private insurance company." Neither Rovner nor Inskeep offers the most obvious response to this argument: if the government can offer a more efficient, cost-effective program than the private sector, what's the problem?

Inskeep is not done either. He then puts this question to Rovner: "We have Democrats here who are saying it's absolutely essential, if we don't have this public plan, we've got nothing, there's no health care reform, NOTHING. On the other side you have Republicans who say if you put this public plan in, your're right on the way to socialized medicine. Are law makers at all seeing a way between those two extremes."

Rover doesn't even acknowledge the fact that reform without a robust public plan is not reform at all, or as former Sec. of Labor Robert Reich notes:

"A public option large enough to have bargaining leverage to drive down drug prices and private-insurance premiums is the defining issue of universal health care. It's the only way to make health care affordable. It's the only way to prevent Medicare and Medicaid from eating up future federal budgets."

Instead, Rovner agrees with Inskeep, then goes on to claim that the reasonable way between the "extremes" will be a plan "having co-ops...regional buying groups...[or] a government plan but very limited."

NPR is really crafty in this coverage. In these two back-to-back Friday reports they've managed to take an option like the public plan [which is already a serious compromise from the single-payer model] and turn it into "the biggest obstacle" and one of "these extremes." Furthermore, they manage to tout the dismal co-op model as the reasonable compromise. I'll let Robert Reich have the final say about co-ops: "Kent Conrad came up with this bamboozle. Finance chair Baucus is impressed, and some Republicans -- even Grassley -- seem interested...."

Well, almost the final word: he could have added NPR to the list of those "interested."

I Am So There Already

It's kind of interesting that NPR and the Kaiser Family Foundation did a poll about health care issues. The summary of it is here (in PDF) and here are two interesting excerpts:

"Many Americans are experiencing the rise in health care costs personally....These higher bills can be hard to meet....about 45 percent have taken some action to try to reduce the cost of their health care over the past year, including 32 percent who have skipped dental care, 21 percent who haven’t filled a prescription and 20 percent who have skipped a recommended medical test or treatment."

and

"Finally, the survey finds a large gap between what the average health insurance policy costs and what uninsured people are willing to pay. Majorities report being willing to pay $25, $50 or even $100 per month for coverage, but only 29 percent would pay $200 per month, and only 6 percent say they would pay $400."

It would make an interesting personality (or political or class interest) test to see how someone reacts to these two bits of information. I look at them and think "The growing cost of health insurance far outstrips the sagging or shrinking incomes of most people in this country." But I guess if I were a champion of the drunk with cash health insurance industry, I'd skewer those tightwad uninsured people who blanch at paying more than $100 or $200 a month for bottom of the bucket health insurance.

So where does NPR go with this kind of information? Do you really need to ask? On Friday morning Richard Knox talks to health insurance industry gurus (grubbers?) and comes up with these little pearls of wisdom:

"Economist Jonathan Gruber of MIT says if everybody's going to be covered, some people will have to get used to the idea of paying more than they think they can....He says the nation needs to create a culture of health insurance where people think it's as much a part of the budget as car payments and utility bills."

Holy smokes have these guys been going through my trash and looking at my pay stubs? They must have looked at my bi-monthly $362.50 health insurance deductions. Let's do some maths. That comes out to $725 a month or $8700 a year for our little All-American family of four. Man, what a bargain. We love it. We just love that every doctor visit is a $25 dollar co-pay and that our plan is a gold-standard 80-20 plan. We are just soooo "used to the idea of paying more than we think we can" - come to think of it, we've had about 20 years to get used to this idea. In fact I'd say in our nation's great "culture of health insurance" we are one cultured family.

From the Inbox

I got a thoughtful email from someone who read the comment I posted on the NPR site regarding Alicia Shepard's comments on NPR's "Monkey See" blog [re: "See No Irony" post below]. Here's the email which I'm posting by request from the sender:

You wrote:
"I challenge Shepard (or anyone for that matter) to show any examples in the last 10 years where NPR's main news shows (ME, ATC, WE-Sat or WE-Sun) "held people in power accountable for what they said,[or] put it in context." I've been carefully critiquing NPR for almost 3 years and NPR News consistently echoes and champions the opinions and assertions of the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and free market corporatism."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2009/03/the_extended_uncut_daily_show.html

I've only heard one instance of NPR actually standing up to spin by an
interviewee:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15046448

I've never heard anything like it since, and I listen almost every day.

As I recall, there were tons of people who wrote in letters showing
support and calling for more:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15198525

Please indicate this on your blog. I couldn't find it anywhere.

Daniel Roesler

I appreciated the work that Roesler did to find this piece and the positive response of listeners. Siegel's interview does fit with my challenge. He does confront a White House spokesperson with what he has said and with what the facts are. Siegel does a decent job of contextualizing the conversation by noting that even for a $60,000 income family of four - health insurance coverage can be extremely expensive and burdensome. However, even as Siegel points out, the support for the SCHIP expansion was shared by most newspaper editorials and several prominent Republicans. I guess what I found most hopeful is that listeners seem to be hungry for a higher quality of reporting even though it's rare on NPR.

Smooth Operators

FAIR busts the media - including NPR - for its lockdown against reporting on a single-payer health plan for the US. So it was rich to hear Maura Liasson covering President Obama's Forum on Health Reform. Liasson feels no irony in stating "even the White House is careful to say it's open to ANY ideas that meet its goals of controlling costs" while never mentioning the single-payer option. Not only does this idea get no mention, Liasson's whole report is a shameless spin operation by two major players for the Hospital and Health Insurance Industry.

We hear a lot from Chip Kahn who's biography notes that

"Prior to joining the Federation of American Hospitals, he was one of the nation's foremost leaders of the health insurance industry. From 1998 to 2001, while serving as President of the Health Insurance Association of America."

Liasson's report also leans heavily on the comments of Karen Ignagni - president and CEO of - what do you know - the America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). We get to hear Ignani explain how she helped wreck the 1994 Clinton attempt at health care reform because her group was "very concerned about the role of government in that plan" but now - according to Liasson - AHIP "wants to help craft not kill a health reform bill." Isn't that sweet?

Liasson also lets us hear from Rahm Emmanuel who claims that the White House approach puts "everyone at the starting gate together." Seems like it would have been a good time to ask why single-payer representatives were only allowed in at the last minute, and why single-payer has been essentially eliminated from consideration by the administration (and by NPR too).

The one story NPR did on single-payer recently (Dec. 24, 2008) was interesting for how much time it spent trying to distort and dismantle the accepted fact that single-payer is viewed rather favorably by most people in the US. A good deal of that Christmas Eve program was turned over to Robert Blendon who tries to spin one poll into a rejection of single payer. NPR cleverly identified Bob Blendon as "an expert in health care public opinion at the Harvard School of Public HealthHarvard School of Public Health." What they failed to mention is that he's on the board of directors of Assurant, Inc., a corporate powerhouse which provides, among other things, "individual health and small employer group health insurance; group dental insurance." An honest oversight, I'm sure...

If It's Not Unanimous You Can't Have It

What a bizarre report from Julie Rovner on health care reform and the recent election. As everyone knows the the voters who helped elect Obama President want and expect major health care reform. Explaining the reasons why even reform (instead of complete overhaul) might not happen the way you thought it would when you cast your ballot, Rovner makes this statement:

"So obstacle one is a public that's divided between wanting more and less government involvement in in health care."

Divided? That's funny...I could have sworn there were some serious majorities out there who support government led universal health care. I did a little searching and - whew - I wasn't just hallucinating again. Let's see what some of the polls show:

• A Kaiser Poll of October 2008 (pdf file) shows 84% believe that "Health care should be provided equally to everyone, just as public education is," 76% believe that "access to health care should be a right," and "over 6 in 10 (63%) favor the government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes."
• A Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey from August 2008 shows "A government guarantee of universal health insurance, even if it means raising taxes, continues to attract broad support. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) favor such a proposal, while 34% are opposed."
• CNN Opinion Research Opinion poll of May 2007 (pdf) finds 64% of Americans "think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes."
• A CBS/New York Times poll of March 2007 finds that "most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance."

Yeah, that's real division. I mean 37% to 63% is like, wow, almost a 50-50 deadlock with just a little 13% change in each direction. Honestly, does Rovner think she can just make up any lie that fits NPR's general opposition to universal health care and pass it off as fact?

Hey Rovner - busted!

Bilge

Imagine someone saying the following:

"I am free, free as any man can be, as free as any man ever was - almost continuously. Sure I have to occasionally stop, touch land, mingle with dirt dwellers and their slick glad handing politicians and of course the related uniformed power thugs which anxiously encircle them - you know they don't talk about extortion, these days, nah that's not PC. They don't talk about strong armed tactics or intimidation, nah, they are too civilized for that. Instead we call it taxes and universal health care, and my favorite - paying one's fair share."

Extortion, strong armed tactics, intimidation = health care! Give me a break. Anyone can harbor whatever resentful, bitter ignorant attitudes they want about taxes and health care, but it's not fit material for a public news program. However, NPR sees fit to provide a forum to captain Fatty Goodlander.

I could only wonder if Goodlander felt the same about health care when he had a minor heart attack and was "evacuated by air to a cardiac unit in Puerto Rico"? I wonder who was extorted and intimidated to get him the care he needed then?

What the Doctor Ordered

One or more people at NPR deserve medals for getting past its typically awful coverage of our national health care disgrace. This morning NPR offered the first of a series of examinations of the health care systems of other leading industrial nations (today's was Germany's).

Noticeably lacking was any of the usual dismissiveness toward a comprehensive national health care system. The reporter conducting the story actually tried to discover what works with Germany's system, what its users think about it, and - rarely mentioned in news reports - how the guarantee of full and equitable health care for all citizens of a country can improve the humanity of that country, creating a sense of compassion and unity (the report even called it solidarity!).

As I've written before, I am disgusted at paying exorbitant rates (now $8000 a year for my family - with $25 office visit copays) for employer supported coverage that is far worse than what one should get - and that doesn't do anything to help include the uninsured in coverage. So thank you, whoever you are at NPR who put together this show. It is crucial to highlight the possibilities of a better health care system in this election year when there is a slight possibility that our own system may be improved (although I confess to having the same delusion back in 1992).