The Missoulian and its state bureau (probably the whole Lee chain) pull out all the stops to compaign for health care reform in the Sunday paper.
The A section is chockablock with tales of woe. The upshot: Do something! Do anything - we’ll fix it later! Thousands are falling through the cracks! Although each story cluster seems to include at least one self-employed artiste...why is that? Could it be that following your bliss comes at a price after all?
A drier, less compelling wire story on page 2 reports Republicans resorting to some study data showing that the House bill would increase health care costs overall. (More at Politico.) Meanies.
The coordinated media attack comes on top of the steady drip-drip of similar stories in the local and national media since the latest healthcare bill effort began, plus paid TV ads from groups like this one. When some sort of bill is passed by Congress, the chattering classes national and local will move on to the next social engineering project.
The timing, of course, is impeccable, just as Congress confers to meld their two versions of reform. The intent is to ramrod the bill based on emotion, rather than let it get bogged down on the cold questions of long-term cost.
It is as predictable and nauseating as the current ad campaign tie-ins for the movie 2012. Today’s manipulative media have no shame.
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 9:44 am
It ia amazing to me that a goodly number of the poor folks, didn’t look for insurance UNTILL they were ill. That is a good case for the dark side wanting to do away with personal resposibility and become a nanny state.
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am
I was thinking the same thing, that the problem is indeed difficult, but that there is no discussion about the current House proposal and if it would work. If the proposal bankrupts all spending except for the debt payments, we won’t have any health care.
How is that supposed to be better?
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I also noted that the various pieces failed to mention a few things:
1. RE: Andrea Martin - the young mother who cut back her hours to return to school and therefore doesn’t qualify for her employer’s plan - what about her husband, Bob? Does he work? Where? Does his employer offer health benefits?
2. RE: Beth Ferris - the filmmaker and writer with chronic fatigue syndrome - she ran up about $15000 in medical expenses last year, yet the article fails to answer the big question - is she paying for those expenses? The discussion focuses on what the proposed healthcare system may or may not pay for and how much she might have to pay. Why should we the taxpayers have to pick up the tab for her care in the future if she’s somehow paying for it herself now?
3. RE: Melissa Armington - the woman with five children, recently diagnosed with MS - again, what about her husband’s employer?
4. RE: Eric Dunn - for some reason I think the reporter has failed to include several important pieces of information here. Why is a 29 year-old working only part time for $10/hr. I suspect there are valid reasons, but they probably don’t play well for the storyline the reporter wanted to convey, so they were conveniently omitted.
All in all, the reports were superficial, insufficient, and left more questions unanswered than not.
Grade: D
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Inconvenient facts spoil Teh Narrative.
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
After American statistical science was thoroughly corrupted by the “secondhand smoke” lobby and pushed into its grave by the “global warming” lobby, I have not bothered to read any statistics about national health care. I do, however, read the sob stories, mostly to identify the stock characters and plots that the liberal media are promoting.
I am not without an opinion on government meddling in our health care system, however. But my opinion has not been formed by wading through oceans of liberal media slush. Rather, it has been formed by simply observing the government’s recent and pathetic attempt at inoculating the population against Swine Influenza.
I noted the following items during the “pandemic”:
1. Media hype and ridiculous statistics;
2. Incompetent government administration, manufacturing, and distribution;
3. Government mandated rationing of vaccine.
4. Wasted billions of taxpayer money.
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
You people are just mean haters.
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Emotion-tugging stories aside, this is a complicated matter.
There are two dynamics, and they overlap and confuse everyone.
One, the problem is real. Our health care system is a business model designed to make money for investors. That’s fine for many areas, but does not work in this area as it creates an incentive for insurers (and to a lesser degree, providers) not to provide care and to use any means they can to avoid sick people. That alone creates most of the problem of the un and under-insured.
But it gets messy after that. Because of our campaign finance system and other dynamics at work in Washington, health insurance and pharmaceutical companies had undue influence in the reform legislation. What we have is a Trojan Horse, a way for these very same people who created our problem to work their way deeper into the system and bring us more under thumb. Crappy as their products are, we will be forced to buy them, and taxpayers will subsidize many of those who cannot afford the products.
So in steps Lee Newspapers with their emotional stories, completely oblivious t the real underlying story. As a tax guy, I can tell you from experience that journalists don’t do complicated very well, so it is predictable that they boiled this down to Andrea, Beth, Melissa and Eric. They are not capable of anything beyond such stories.
Right and left can find common cause in fighting this so-called “reform” - right because you fear government, left because we fear corporate rule. Let’s kill the son of a bitch, and live to fight another day.
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“One, the problem is real.”
Premise rejected. End of argument.
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Is it too much to ask, to want to see corresponding anecdotes where the “system” worked splendidly? Oh, no, that wouldn’t fly, would it. What’s the point - we can’t Change the World that way.
The status quo has a lot to recommend it. I hate the way it is blithely insinuated that we do “nothing” for the poor now. What about the millions served by Medicaid, including those using Partnership Health here in Missoula? Many of those polled saying they were uninsured actually have Medicaid. I think it was 11% of the 10% who are uninsured. What about all the pro bono services donated by doctors and nurses now?
And Mark, my critique is mostly aimed at the tried and true anecdotal reportorial shtick. It is so simplistic, so manipulative, it bores rather than enlightens; they agitated the same way for cheap prescription drug and look where that got us - on the road to financial ruin. And the stories seem to trivialize serious problems, make the “victims” look feckless and irresponsible, and it might be that they’re merely giving the reporter what they think he wants. Who knows.
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I surely do agree on that last paragraph. Very nicely put.
But there is a real underlying problem:
Lack of preventive care for the uninsured …
Lack of adequate health insurance for even those who are insured …
Resulting in avoidance of medical help until problems are emergent …
And contrary to popular belief, we do not offer “free” care to any but the indigent.
Consequently, we have millions of un and underinsured, millions who go without care, millions who are harassed for payment, and millions, insured and uninsured alike, who go bankrupt every year due to medical issues.
It’s all avoidable. Get rid of the profit seekers. Every other industrialized country did it, and it works.
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
“Every other industrialized country did it, and it works.”
Argumentum ad populum.
on Nov 15th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
“The masses are always wrong.”
Argumentum ad Wall Streetum.
on Nov 16th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Gregg - “You people are just mean haters.”
Not so. We’re really nice haters.
on Nov 16th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Dave - you and Wulfgar need to sit down and get your logicalfallacybaiting houses in order. Maybe you can read whatever book it is he read.
Argumentum ad populum is an appeal to the galleries to advance an argument. Calling upon readers to review the real experiences of other industrial democracies is not a logical fallacy. It’s a call to broaden the base of evidence.
on Nov 16th, 2009 at 10:48 am
But, Mark, we do not want to be like other countries.
Actually, they all want to be like us.
Duh.
on Nov 16th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Oh. Hi Max.
on Nov 16th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Sweeping new U.S. breast cancer guidelines released on Monday recommend against routine mammograms for women in their 40s, and suggest women 50 to 74 only get a mammogram every other year.
///
Translation: In preparation for government rationing of health care, and in light of the high incidence of hypochondria among women, we are telling you now that we will not pay for your mammograms in the future if you are under 50 or if you have had more than one mammogram in the past two years.
on Nov 16th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
What’d I say??
http://missoulapolis.com/index.php/2009/10/23/now-they-tell-us/
on Nov 16th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Nov 15th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“One, the problem is real.”
,i>Premise rejected. End of argument.
Lovin’ Max Bucks!
on Nov 16th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
ack.
Premise rejected. End of argument.
on Nov 17th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Carol - you are oversimplifying - I think your tendency is to be fair and thoughtful, but you have a right wing reactionary side that is sometimes exposed. Make for an interesting blog.
Here’s the problem: The US is better than most countries in early detection of cancer. You will find people who defend our system bragging about that. The problem is that our cancer survival rates are no better than anyone else’s.
Hence, a contradiction.
One explanation is put forth as follows: The presence of cancer in a body does not mean that body will eventually succumb to cancer. The body’s immune system can respond to the presence of cancer and defeat it, in fact does so all the time. Most people by the time they reach age 50 are going to have minor cancers present, but they will not spread and kill the host.
Hence, early detection does not translate into a higher survival rate.
It is but one explanation, I don’t say that it is ‘true’ or ‘proven’. It’s a hypothesis. I invite to you provide your own, preferrably something different than “the gubbmint is getting ready for national health care and ain’t gonna test us no more”. That, frankly, is stupid.
on Nov 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
[All together now, let us sing with Doctor Mark!]
You know a man of my ability
He should be smokin’ on a big cigar
But till I get myself straight I guess I’ll just have to wait
In my rubber suit rubbin’ these cars
on Nov 17th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Mark, oversimplifying how? You’re just assuming that but not from anything I wrote. I think the mammograms are overdone too, and had a lot of false alarms. I’d have been better off not getting any screening at all. It happened to friends and my mother, and I’ve been reading between the lines for years now that the received wisdom was shifting. But tell that to all the women’s mags and TV shows and health Internet sites, not to mention the MD nags.
But it’s been the govt and NIH and cancer societies and medical media that have overhyped screening. Again, more manipulation, more emotionalism and fear-mongering. I’m as tired of the medical-wellness media hype as I am of all the other hype.
Now they have to do a 180, and what a coinky-dink, it dovetails nicely with ObamaCare anyway. I LOL’d.