Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHealthcare Reform Minus the Public Option—or the Public
Waving the white flag and kicking the left
It was probably a given that the corporate press would mangle the debate over this year's healthcare reform legislation, considering their poor showing in the healthcare debate of the early '90s (Extra!, 7-8/93). The only questions were when and how. One answer came immediately, as the media shut off discussion of a popular single-payer plan before it even started (Extra!, 6/09). But in the debate the media did allow, the answer came in late summer, when "town hall" protests and the media's fetish for bipartisanship pushed the discourse well to the right.
In some ways the media's malpractice was typical. A July survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (News Coverage Index, 7/20-26/09) found that most of the coverage they studied that week focused on political strategy and Beltway maneuvering rather than the actual content of the various proposals. A Politico report (7/27/09) tried to get reporters to explain why the healthcare issue seemed to bore them. One MSNBC host claimed that it's "bad for ratings." CNBC correspondent and New York Times reporter John Harwood elaborated: "It's not only not a cable TV-friendly story; it's not a journalism-friendly story." Harwood lamented the difficulties in understanding cost controls and the like.
NPR health policy reporter Julie Rovner concurred, telling Politico that "the problem with healthcare is that it's so big and so complicated that the public is never really going to understand all the moving parts of this."
So instead of trying to inform the public, the media seem to have settled on simply teaching a straightforward and familiar political lesson to Democratic politicians (many of whom don't need the extra push): Move to the right. That largely meant encouraging the White House to drop its support for the "public option"-a government-backed insurance plan that would offer coverage to some segment of the population that does not enjoy private coverage-and applauding when President Barack Obama appeared to be doing just that.
In order to make that case, media have had to frame the public option as a serious liability for the White House, rather than a popular core of its overhaul.
An August 18 Los Angeles Times piece led off: "By dropping his insistence on a public insurance option, President Obama angered some of his most loyal supporters but sharply improved the odds of passing a far-reaching healthcare overhaul." It was curious, then, to find this simple statement several paragraphs into the article: "Polls have shown that a large majority of Americans favor a public option." Coherent journalism might try to explain how something that is popularly supported is nonetheless politically impossible, and why removing one of the more popular features of a bill "improves the odds" of passing that bill.
An August 17 Washington Post story led this way: "Racing to regain control of the healthcare debate, two top administration officials signaled Sunday that the White House may be willing to jettison a controversial government-run insurance plan favored by liberals." Here "regaining control" is a strange euphemism for backtracking; the public option is "controversial," and its appeal is apparently restricted mainly to liberals.
On the roundtable segment of ABC's This Week (8/9/09), host George Stephanopoulos wondered if Obama would accept a watered-down bill in order to break with the "Howard Dean wing of the party." This notion was seconded by panelist Cokie Roberts, with right-wing columnist Peggy Noonan chiming in to say, "Maybe it would be good for the president if the left got absolutely furious about something." The old Beltway advice remains unchanged: For a Democrat to "win," he or she must kick the left of the party.
The Washington Post editorial page weighed in on August 20, under the heading: "No Longer an Option: To Pass Health Reform, the Obama Administration Will Have to Ditch Its Goal of a Public Plan." In case that message wasn't clear enough on its own, the Post went on to deride as "crazy" those Democrats who believe reform without a public option would hardly be worth it. Indeed, the obstructionists in the debate seemed to be those on the left advocating for something along the lines of the public option. (This would be the most left-wing position permissible in much of the media once single-payer advocates were effectively shut out-FAIR Media Advisory, 3/6/09.)
As Crooks and Liars reported on August 19, that morning MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell asked NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd, "How did this become the thing that liberals will not live without?" Todd answered that he thought "it became a big deal from the left because originally it was the immediate point of attack from some conservatives....You sort of wonder was it simply a political reaction from the left: ‘They don't like it, we love it.'"
In the Los Angeles Times, Doyle McManus (8/23/09) saw virtue in Obama's muddled stance, since it would make capitulation that much easier:
Obama has left himself plenty of room to downsize his plan. Too many voters think end-of-life counseling sounds like a "death panel"? Out it goes. Too many senators think a government-run "public option" insurance plan would crowd private firms out of the market? Tell them you can live with something less, like regional cooperatives-even as you tell your dispirited progressive supporters that you'd still prefer the public option.
So if the conventional wisdom is that the White House should move away from the "left," that must mean that the solution lies-as it so often does for the corporate media-in the "middle." CNBC's Erin Burnett declared on NBC's Meet the Press (8/9/09), "Americans don't want healthcare that isn't bipartisan."
The August 6 Washington Post offered a helpful lesson on the media's notion of centrism, with the headline: "Senators Closer to Health Package: Bipartisan Talks on Reform Move Toward Center." The "talks" refer to those held by the working group of the Senate Finance Committee, which produced a plan that "seeks middle ground" and could provide media-friendly "bipartisan agreement." One of the principle features of this "centrist" plan would be scuttling the public option; apparently it is "centrist" and "middle ground" to discard popular policy proposals.
As the debate heated up, with angry right-wing protesters shouting down politicians, threatening violence and comparing Obama to Adolph Hitler, the Post editorial page (8/9/09) seemed to find the threat to that sacred middle ground more on the left than on the right. As the Post's subhead put it (perhaps too kindly), "Rhetoric and distortion imperil the opportunity to fix the American healthcare system."
"Republican lawmakers and conservative activists have fanned the flames of uninformed opposition," the paper explained, but the next three paragraphs were directed at the White House and Democrats for "vilifying the health-insurance industry," overstating the profit margins of the insurance industry (they're extremely profitable, argued the Post, but not making "record profits," as Obama had claimed), and promising too much to everyone. In other words, judged by the amount of time spent assigning blame, the Post believes that Democrats and the White House are roughly three times as guilty as their Republican and conservative counterparts. Apparently, at the Washington Post, comparing someone to a Nazi is less offensive than saying health insurers make too much money.
22 Comments so far
Show Alljennifer is this a chicken or the egg theory? who corrupted who?
npr = national petroleum radio. none a trustable which is why were all here!
"they're extremely profitable"
USans have no clue what is reasonable profit versus excess profit. USans will actually argue against setting such a standard. Meanwhile USans ignore that the US constitution enshrines exactly that: A definition of a reasonable level of legal protection for copyrights. It's the same thing for profits. Both are incentives designed to wring best value from markets, for maximum public benefit. Too much copyright protect, too much profit, and boom, market value collapses.
reform - reform = 0.
But that doesn't go half far enough to explain what a sorry dog this reform has become.
A new model for incumbents: When in doubt, boot them out.
It's worse than that. The insurance and pharmaceutical industry are the ones planning to get what they want. Right and left need to fight this together.
Congress’ Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare - CONFIRMED
Leaders in the House and Senate have a plan to pass President Barack Obama’s sweeping health care plan by Thanksgiving without any significant participation by the American public. CNS News has confirmed the details in our September 22nd titled “Passing a Shell of A Bill: Congress’ Secret Plan to Ram Through Health Care Reform.” Nicholas Ballasy reports “a senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told CNSNews.com that it is ‘likely’ that Reid will use H.R. 1586—a bill passed by the House in March to impose a 90-percent tax on bonuses paid to employees of certain bailed-out financial institutions—as a ‘shell’ for enacting the final version of the Senate’s health care bill, which Reid is responsible for crafting.”
This story confirms the four part scenario that would railroad the bill through the Senate using a very unusual closed door procedure to craft the bill with no input from the American people.
The four stage plan to pass Obamacare has been publicly confirmed and is ready to be implemented. The following is a comprehensive update:
Step One: “The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday.” Progress on this had been stalled and the bill was not passed by the end of last week. Foxnews.com is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office score of the bill will be released later today and a high score may further stall progress on the Committee’s Vapor Bill. Senate Finance Committee’s progress on passing something out of committee – INCOMPLETE.
Step Two: Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee. CNSnews.com has confirmed that “the actual final text of the legislation will be determined by Reid himself, who will consolidate the legislation approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the still-unapproved legislation from the Senate Finance Committee. Reid will be able to draft and insert textual language that was not expressly approved by either committee.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will write the final version of Obamacare to be considered in the Senate with no input from the American people. This is an extremely complex procedure that will not be done in public, or in the form of a hearing, or a public conference committee, and only Senator Harry Reid, some other Senators chosen by Reid and Obama Administration officials will be allowed to read the bill before the Senate debate starts. Merger of the bills – IN PROGRESS.
Step Three: Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. A senior aid to Senate Majority Leader Ried has confirmed that he will move to proceed to Senate Calendar Number 36, H.R. 1586, or another House passed tax measure, so the Senate can avoid the Constitutional mandate that tax bills originate in the House. Proceed to tax shell of a bill – CONFIRMED.
Step Four: This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. The Senate swore in new Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk on September 25th. Change Law of Massachusetts to allow for interim Senator – COMPLETE.
The final step in this plan is for the House to take up Obama care, without amending the legislation, and then sending that bill directly to the President for his signature. Matt Cover at CNSnews.com reports “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) won’t rule out having the House vote on the Senate health-care bill without making any changes in it, which would allow the bill to go directly to President Barack Obama without having to pass through a House-Senate conference committee and another round of votes in the House and Senate–and a longer period of public scrutiny of what the text of the proposed law actually says.” This scenario is in the process of being implemented and, if successful, it will result in Obamacare being on the President’s desk in time for Thansgiving with minimal participation of the American public.
The San Francisco Examiner published an editorial today that exposed the fact that the American people can’t see the bill. “When then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised not to sign major legislation until it had been posted on the Internet for public reading at least five days, trusting voters took him at his word. Now they know better. Not only is the actual language of what is likely to become the main legislative vehicle for Obama’s signature health care reform not available on the Internet, it hasn’t been given to members of the key Senate committees or the Congressional Budget Office.” The procedure being used, in addition to the exclusion of the American people from the process, should be of grave concern to all who want to participate in democracy and have a say in Congress’ health care reforms that will touch 1/6th of the American economy.
This procedure is the same unconstitutional procedure they used to pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) back in November to give Hank Paulson his ‘$700 Billion Bazooka.’ The American people said ‘NO’ at the top of their lungs to that at the time, yet it passed anyway because they used this ‘backdoor’ procedure. It has now set a devastating precedent and Congress is about to use it again.
Doomed people. Doomed nation. Doomed empire. Doomed by their choosing Exclusion as their preferred way of life. Doomed by their choosing Male Supremacy/Gender Slavery as their preferred way of life. Doomed by their choosing Constant War as their preferred way of life. Doomed by their choosing Feral Blood Drinking Psychotic Oligarchy as their "Masters". These are the compass points for Hell On Earth, as everyone is about to discover, if they haven't already, and many haven't. Call it, The Great Shattering. Or, as was said a decade ago in Gladiator, "Their time for honoring themselves will soon be at an end."
White America had the choice, and they made it, 45 years ago. They had the greatest distribution of wealth among white males ever seen in 6000 years of human history. Period. Full Stop. The END of poverty forever in America was IN SIGHT. Period. Full Stop. Lifetime stable employment was on the horizon. Period. Full Stop.
Three things were required and White America failed the Test. They had to make an equal starting place for everyone at the table and they snarled, "NOOOOOOO!!!!!! NEVVVVVVERRRRR". They had to reject War and the Rights of Conquest and they snarled, "NOOOOOOO!!!!!! NEVVVVVVERRRRR" And they had to let their (nearly moribund) Oligarchy DIE as a social caste, turn it into an artifact of our history, like War and Royalty, and they snarled, "NOOOOOOO!!!!!! NEVVVVVVERRRRR."
In '68 White people were 87% of the population and in 49 states they overwhelmingly elected RMN to put the Blacks, those uppity women, and those anti-war protesters in their >>>>> place. Nixon took the purple, Hoover took the call. Hoover, graduate of the Palmer raids and Anslinger's protege dusted off programs for Ritual Defamation, False Imprisonment, and Extra Judicial Exection that he'd been developing back to 1924 when he was politically appointed head of the Bureau of Investigation under Treasury. In those days, the ENEMIES were Bolshies, Communists, Socialists, Union Organizers, Anarchists, and Civil Rights Workers, and of course, the ACLU. They'd lost the battle over Women's Suffrage and they had no intention of losing any more battles. Hoover was Point Man. And he put his programs on steroids. Within a decade of Nixon's taking office, long after Hoover was dead and Nixon part of the past, those policies and practices of Ritual Defamation, False Imprisonment, and Extra Judicial Execution had become generalized throughout government agencies and into the society at large. Within a decade of Nixon's taking office in Jan '69, there were NO Leaders, and NO Mass Movements for Economic & Social Justice, attempting to 'push' White America into making a society based on Inclusion, and the White Majority still snarls, "NOOOOOOO!!!!!! NEVVVVVVERRRRR." As I said earlier, the compass points for Hell On Earth....
Doomed people. Doomed nation. Doomed empire. Doomed by their choosing.
Peace.
P.S. Not too much time for any of this these days, takes too many hours just to live, and that's part of the pattern too.
So what are you saying-- that we're doomed or something?
· Yr Obd't Servant
I'm saying that actions are always driven by core operating values and until they have been addressed the actions will follow the same arc, the same trajectory. Roosevelt legacy was Inclusive in its scope and trajectory. That was all fine until it produced a direct and immediate threat to White Male Supremacy and the structural inequalities of race, class, and gender that are sine qua non for White Male identity. The Big Freak Out. That's why any 'reforms' that are Inclusive have been DOA for 40 years....can't run a society based on Exclusion if you start letting everybody in...like saying that the guy who mows your lawn or the person flipping burgers at Wendy's should have a single income middle class life capable of supporting a family, a home, health care, cradle to grave education (free), and a fixed benefit pension...."NOOOOO!!!! NEVVVVVERR!!" And yes, such a people are doomed. They will eat each other.
The implied became predictable and is now inevitable...not because they cannot change, but because they would rather die, have the country die, and have their grandchildren live in squalor, degradation, and destitution rather than give up a 6000 year old model for Hell On Earth...
Yeah, doomed.
Peace.
Make these phone calls and spread the word by email to your friends.
Boycott Tyson Foods of Arkansas who gave Mike Ross D-Arkansas
$37,000 for his campaigns. Call lobbyist for Tyson Foods Chuck
Penry 202 393 3921 and tell him politely that you refuse to
buy Tyson chicken until Mike Ross D-Arkansas the leader of the
Blue Dogs on health care gets the entire house and senate
conservative Democrats to help get HR 676 enacted into law.
Tell others to call. Send me email after you call to
info@democratz.org
Boycott American Express who gave Max Baucus $50,000 for his
campaigns. Call Joanna Lambert at 212 640 9668 and politely
tell her you will not use any American Express cards until
Max Baucus gets HR 676 enacted into law. Email me after you call.
Call GOP contributor Rite Aid Pharmacies at 800 325 3737 and
tell the person to get the CEO to get congress to enact HR 676
Single payer health care and enact a new Medicare Prescription
drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80% of the cost of
drugs with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means
tests, no coverage gaps, and remove the means test for Medicare
Part B and until that happens, you won't buy ANYTHING from
Rite Aid Pharmacies.
In 2008 Brown-Forman, the maker of Jack Daniels Whiskey and
Southern Comfort gave Mitch McConnell money for his campaigns.
CALL Brown-Forman AT 502-585-1100 and tell the person who
answers to get the CEO to GET Mitch McConnell to execute no
Republican filibusters and enact the Employee free choice act
into law or you don't buy Jack Daniel's whiskey and Southern
Comfort anymore!
Call GOP contributor Wendy's restaurants at 800 443 7266 and
tell the person who answers that you want their CEO to get
congress to enact a $10/HR MIN. WAGE into law and until this
happens you will not go to a Wendy's Restaurant.
Call GOP contributor and war contractor General Electric
Corporation at 800 386 1215 or 203 373 2211 and tell the
person who answers, to tell the GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt that
you want him to get the President to end the war in Iraq
and Afghanistan and until that happens you will not buy
any GE products and that you will tell your friends about this.
Henry8 is right in some ways. It's the damn gov't that started this sh** to begin with more than the media. The PUBLIC LAVA continues to get hotter and redder and I won't forget the day Deeds made his opposition to single payer for all Virginians known that he dropped 5 points in the polls for the governor's race but that was earlier this year when no one was paying attention. I finally got to watch Hardball on MSNBC the other night and when Pat Buchanan and Howard Fineman both agreed that white working class voters and seniors are showing their anger of Obama's performance by taking it to the governor's race, this confirmed Henry8's earlier assertion that the Democrats are heavily losing among independents and seniors and it is showing. Seniors ain't stupid. They know that when politicians refuse to provide for their young that they will be next on the hit list. It sucks that we're gonna be stuck with a Republican governor openly giving all Virginians the economic middle finger. The only difference between a Republican doing it and a Democrat doing it is the Republican makes no bones about it while the Democrat tries to stall and goes waffling to confuse and irritate us.
Don't forget that when the election is over, no corporate media "analyst" or pundit will tell us the real reasons Democrats failed which were their refusal to stand up for the working class liberal policies. They'll instead give bullsh** on frivolous social issues.
dumddown old fart
Seniors must wear a grey armband. They will be rounded up by SWAT teams and sent to government extermination camps which appear to be hospitals.
An ancient Roman senator once suggested that slaves should be required to wear an identifying device. A more astute senator said no, because then they would see how they outnumber us and all would be lost.
Empires such as ancient Rome and the current U.S. that are committed to increasing concentrations of wealth and power continuously expand the politically and economically impoverished portion of the population. To prevent the rebellion that would inevitably result if the downtrodden were to wake up and unify, the rulers must conduct a widespread campaign of perception management.
There are many techniques for warping mass perceptions but they mostly boil down to:
> Distraction from real issues.
(Government run health care will kill Grandma and next they'll take your guns away so you can't defend yourself against illegal immigrants and Jihadists and there's a boogeyman under your bed.)
> Division of the populace into antagonistic groupings.
(Liberals love Islamists and homosexuals who hate Christians and want to force abortions on Blacks whom you secretly fear because....)
With the primary information channels tightly consolidated, it is not difficult to foment and maintain confusion, conflict and a great deal of mental fatigue among a large portion of the population, especially when so many are already consumed with anxieties.
As Clifford Geertz observed, "To shore up the dikes of their necessary beliefs, men will use whatever mud they can find." Look no further - the perception managers have arranged home delivery.
Oh, very, *very*, *VERY* well said! You've articulated an insight that we all need to keep a firm grip on: we are constantly having our perceptions managed to make us think we're isolated loosy-goosey nuts out on the mental fringe rather than solidly among the majority of all citizens. The ruling-class propaganda machine constantly bombards us with the message that it's the ruling-class interests that are held by the majority, which is an 'infamous' lie of the kind Hitler wrote about:
"Die Menschen lassen sich eher auf eine große Lüge ein als auf eine kleine Lüge, weil sie selbst oft kleine Lügen in kleinen Angelegenheiten erzählen, aber sich schämen würden, sich auf große Falschheiten zurückzuziehen. Es käme ihnen niemals in den Kopf, kollossale Unwahrheiten zu fabrizieren, und sie würden niemals glauben, daß andere die Unverschämtheit besäßen, die Wahrheit so infam zu verdrehen. Sogar, wenn die Tatsachen, die beweisen, daß es so ist, klar in ihren Geist gebracht werden, werden sie immer noch zweifeln und schwanken und werden anhalten zu denken, daß es eine andere Erklärung geben könnte."
"The ordinary people more easily believe a great lie than a small one, because they themselves often tell small lies but would be too ashamed to tell a big one. So it never comes into their heads that anyone would so shameless as to make up a really colossal, infamous lie. Even when the big lie is revealed to be what it is, people continue to waver and doubt reality and tell themselves that there might be some other explanation."
All we have to do is get together and see our true numbers and that's the finish for the oligarchs. "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy [already], and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."
"Public option" is a euphemism and it is deliberately ambiguous.
It was a politically constructed phrase injected into the health care debate in order mis-label and divert attention away from the idea of "single payer."
At the beginning of the health care debate, I was amazed that no one in the media even uttered the words "single payer." The media/conservatives/"thought leaders" needed a different phrase that would change the frame of the discussion away from the notion of "single payer" towards some amorphous government sponsored plan. The "public option" phrase was used.
I bet most Americans have no idea what single payer means. They also do NOT know that ALL other countries with large economies have government paid, non-profit medical insurance for all their citizens.
You can thank the American MSM for this lack of knowledge.
Peter Hart is right in what he says. There should be more media critiques of the media and how they handle the job of informing the public.
You are entering the Bizarro world of the "Obama-Zone"...
Single Payer? but...but...but...you would have to start over!! ;)
Why do that when all the system needs is a few tweaks,...you need to shift more of the campagn contributions over to the Democrats and more of the cost to the public and more borrowed money from the government to go to insurance company profits.
...And what is a public option anyway? Public?, who wants their sordid medical history revealed to the whole wide world in public? And Option?, an option is taking a chance, and believe you me, when it comes to my family's health, i don't take chances, so you can stuff your option!!
Bottom line.
The wealthy corporate class (including the corporate media, the majority of Congress, the White House, Wall Street, anyone affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce,...) has created the fraudulent image that this "debate" must be complicated and confusing.
In fact, the idea of a public "option" was an attempt to further confuse the issue and keep people from seeing the real, financially responsible, and logical solution. SINGLE PAYER.
Even in his impressive program last night, Keith Olbermann confused "medicare for all" with the "public option". The public option is a fraud perpetrated to keep things the way they are.
To Hell with the people who profit from other people's suffering.
Single payer. Simple
Obama made his opposition to single payer clear last year on the campaign trail. On public option, he was totally unclear about just what kind of public option he is referring to. When we got into office, he allowed Congress to define "public option" and didn't care how they fudged it. Well look what happened. Congress came up with a "public option" that was of little threat to Big Insurance. Big Insurance simply wanted to cash in on public anxiety and Obama and the Congress are helping them out. It doesn't matter if "public option" stays or goes. It's a lose-lose for the people and a win-win for Big Insurance.
I beg to differ, Henry8. This article is dead on. The insurance lobby, Congress and the main stream media are all in cahoots, and we, the American people, are being played like a finely tuned fiddle.
Just look at the media personalities cited in this article and tell me they're unbiased and aren't owned lock, stock and barrel by the moneyed interests. Two examples: Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, whose irresponsible, pro-banking-interest fiscal policies while Chairman of the Federal Reserve were a direct cause of the great economic meltdown the world is now experiencing. Chuck Todd is a sell out of the highest order. The image of him appearing at the hearing in Nevada state court to oppose Dennis Kucinich's efforts to participate in the NBC presidential debate is forever seared into my brain. Cokie Roberts... ugh! Need I even explain that one? The Washington Post. Puhleeze! Ever read their propaganda editorials bashing Hugo Chavez?
Sometimes I agree with some of your posts Henry8, but mostly I just wonder why you frequent Common Dreams.
Anyway, the overriding feeling I get when I read articles like this is sick to my stomach, because this author speaks the truth. Wake up and smell the fascism.
"Chuck Todd is a sell out of the highest order. The image of him appearing at the hearing in Nevada state court to oppose Dennis Kucinich's efforts to participate in the NBC presidential debate is forever seared into my brain"
annefaith, I agree, this was the end of the beginning for all of us.
Dennis Kucinich is the only person I can say I would trust 100% to literally improve people's lives in our country and others, and his actions have consistently proved that. Of course, the opposition (democrats and republicans) knew this, and that is why they locked him out of the debates.
"the media shut off discussion of a popular single-payer plan before it even started".
Okay, Peter, you started out with that quote but went on and on from there about the "public option".
Then you quote "NPR health policy reporter Julie Rovner concurred, telling Politico that "the problem with healthcare is that it's so big and so complicated that the public is never really going to understand all the moving parts of this."
You certainly are not helping by repeating all the misinformation and the hollow rhetoric of "public option".
Single-payer health CARE, not mercurial, shape-shifting, insurance industry bailout, "public option" is what the majority of people want.
Why then, are you not quoting single-payer advocates in the media on that?
If you are posing as being critical of the media for their coverage on health care, why are you perpetuating the confusion by repeating it?
Peter, Peter... another shill for the Insurance industry, Obama and Congress, are we??
To blame the media for not having Single Payer on the table is about as honest as Madoff's scam.
"As the debate heated up, with angry right-wing protesters shouting down politicians, threatening violence and comparing Obama to Adolph Hitler"
This is pure Bull Shit, there is no other word for it. Look as hard as I coould, I found only two signs with Nazi references odr Swastica's on them during those meetings. There were far more of those signs about GWB at any march or protest.
When you are dishonest in your reporting, writing or arguments people tend to distrust you from then on and rightfully discount what you say.
This is a dishonest article
The media and the Government move in lock step to advance the same agenda and are equally to blame.
Look as example to the war on Iraq. Were the media not that important, the New York Times and other papers would not have had the Judy Millers advancing the Government position verbatim.
A thorough investigation of 9/11 by the media would have made it clear that a massive coverup was occurring. Even today the chairs of that investigation are admitting the thing a farce yet the media does not report it.
There is virtually nothing on Sibel Edmonds anywhere.
The only time the media starts to report the truth is when it OBVIOUS that the lies they supported have become evident to far too many people. Then the mea Culpa's come out and THEY point fingers elsewhere.
The Media and Government and the Corporate State are inseperable. They are all facets of the MIC.
Henry8, there is nothing dishonest about nailing the dishonest MSM. Yes, the Democrats were bloody fools to force single payer off the table long before the media would dare to bash the idea. Yes, a lot of angry protesters were most likely people all across the political spectrum crying for single payer deep down in their hearts and helplessly protesting Obamacare. However, without a dishonest MSM the currently dishonest Washington that we are witnessing wouldn't exist.