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.

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.

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.

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."

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!

Killing Health Care Again

On Tuesday's ATC Melissa Block hammers away at Hillary Clinton over Health Care and Petraeus. Block critiques Clinton's Health Care plan because it will cost businesses more. What she never does is critique it for being what Clinton's 1993 plan also was - a massive gift to the Health Insurance Industry. (NPR continues selling the revisionist view of Clinton's 1993 plan as an attack on the insurance industry (listen to the Sunday piece with Mr. Insurance, Laszewski. ) What is stunning is that Clinton's current plan is not critiqued from the position of those who want a nationalized single-payer plan. Nothing, nada, zilch! Amazing. After her whining about cost, Block then tries to trap Clinton into saying that Petraeus is the craven liar for the Bush administration that he is - this is pure Fox News tactics. Block even tries to get Clinton to denounce the MoveOn.orgs "Petraeus - Betray Us" ad. How about Block spending half the effort just reporting on all the B.S. that Petraeus tried to spin for Bush, and let the evidence speak for itself?

Health Care Analysis to Die For

Sunday's (9/16) ATC had Bob Laszewski on as an "expert" to talk about health care and the candidates. I was struck by how Laszewski kept repeating that the government can NOT afford to pay for health care! So just what is Laszewski's history? Well, well, he just crawled out from under the insurance industry rock itself! What a surprise. His own biography states "Before forming HPSA in 1992, Mr. Laszewski was Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Group Markets, for the Liberty Mutual Insurance Group. He has had twenty years of health insurance industry management experience - nine of those years as a chief operating officer." Did NPR mention that Laszewski is a stooge for the insurance industry? Not a chance. Adams introduces him as "president of a consulting firm." To his credit Laszewski himself mentions during the interview that "much of my past has been in the insurance industry." NPR just reports, and you decide. Get the bag, I think I'm getting sick...

Sickening

Did corporate "down-sizing" ravage towns like Flint, Michigan and make CEOs filthy rich? Does our country have a culture of violence, a foreign policy of violence, and extremely lax gun laws that contribute to events like the Columbine shooting? Does the health insurance industry make money off depriving people of needed treatment and profit off of human suffering?

Instead of debating the core assertions of Michael Moore's body of work, NPR uses the upcoming release of his newest movie Sicko to quibble with the most irrelevant details of his movies and to basically savage him. Kim Masters is the snide hitwoman assigned the task this time. Last time it was the unctuous Scottie Simon.

Here's an examples: Moore: “The polls show it’s the number one domestic issue.” Masters: “Actually independent polls including ones by Gallup indicate that health care isn’t number one, but it’s up there.” Interesting because back in March 2007, health care WAS the number one domestic issue - with Iraq being the most crucial issue overall. Yes, there seems to be a slight shift in the latest Gallup poll - but it is irrelevant to Moore's overall argument.

Masters went out of her way to find every critical comment she could from reviewers: "a piece of Gonzo demagogery," "lowered the bar for documentaries," "appalled by his confrontation with Heston." Of Moore's first movie Roger and Me she states, "instantly critics attacked Moore for fudging his facts to strengthen his case." She fails to mention that many critics instantly raved about the movie too!

The piece ends with Moore noting that this attacking report shows that "This is the typical, you know NPR, afraid of being accused of having liberal bias — so, let's make sure we attack him enough in this piece." To which Masters snidely responds, "Did we, Kim Masters, NPR News."

Actually I think Moore was wrong. It's not that NPR is afraid of having a liberal bias; it's a reflection of the basic center-right, pro-business slant that is at the core of NPR's values.

Skirting the Issue

This morning NPR does something that drives me nuts. They take on an issue that I don't know a lot about, and then they present it in a way that makes me think I'm being played a fool.

I'm not very well informed about the Medicare Drug Prescription Benefit, but I do know that I really hate the health care system in the US. I know that I hate paying $700 a month to get crummy health insurance for myself and my family - and having my employer pay $375 more a month into a plan so that an insurance company can turn a profit. I know I hate seeing senior citizens have to sweat over which one of forty for-profit insurance companies they want to sign up for to cover their drug costs instead of having ONE government plan that covers everyone!

So this morning Renee Montagne talks to David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal so they can tell us how GREAT the Medicare Drug Prescription Benefit plan is and how successful it is. Montagne begins the show telling us, "It remains controversial, but it’s turning out better than some of its toughest critics warned." Wessel's main input is that a study from J.D. Powers shows that most people in the plan are satisfied with it (in fact "45% were delighted").

Now this is interesting to me. I recall hearing that the main, substantive criticism of the benefit plan is that it was virtually written by the health care/pharmaceutical lobby and that it was an overly expensive program because so much of the funds for the program ended up back in the insurance and drug company coffers (this was Hightower's contention this past summer). But instead of discussing these meaningful points, NPR presents us with a popularity poll that is supposed to convince us how successful the plan is. Especially galling is the fact that David Wessel knows the fallacious nature of this argument. Back in September he pointed out that consumer satisfaction with their health plans had no correlation whatsoever to the actual quality and effectiveness of their plans, and yet here he is making exactly that argument regarding the Medicare Drug Benefit - very sneaky!

There's nothing wrong with NPR giving some coverage to the J.D. Powers study - it is interesting, but clearly their agenda is to spin this one study (with a little help from the Wall Street Journal) into a glowing report on the scam of the Medicare Drug Benefit Program. If you want to find out more about the problems with the plan, you might want to look at this Public Citizen site, or you might want to see how a scuzzy insurer like Humana, Inc. is currently gouging the seniors they were able to corral into their plan using an initial low premium lure. I don't think those folks are going to be "delighted."