Health-Care Misinformation, Demagoguery, and Monopolist Perils

Recently a friend sent me an email requesting that I check the veracity of an online posting by FOX News, Five major ObamaCare taxes. In answer I provided the Summary of New Health Reform Law, written by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Take the test at Kaiser Family Foundation to learn how much you know about Health Reform. With respect to FOX's accurateness, not necessarily for their tax critique but in general, I provide an excerpt from the book, THE FOX EFFECT,  which is printed below my following commentary:

Of recent years, any government-policy consideration that might involved tax revenue has devolved in deadlock while the "tax whipping boy" wins the day --- thanks to Grover Norquist, a pillar of the Republican-right. Taxes are the undermining of many governmental reforms and proposals; it is the demagoguery "war on tax and government." Albeit, the reality is that someone has to pay for government services, including the healthcare most people expect as an inalienable right. Question is, who will foot the bill for healthcare, including the indigent? Will the cost be more equitably shared by those, who are able, but  irresponsibly shirk their duty, being dependent on state and the responsibly insured who pay higher premiums to cover the negligent's debt write-offs,  ---- and those who already make exorbitant profits, i.e. corporations who benefit from favorable, governmental policy? Will they share the cost with spread-around taxes? Of course, tax-fairness is always a concern.

Free-market capitalism, private insurance alone, is not well-suited to universal or optimum coverage; it is complicated, difficult, and the reform-law going forward will need much tweaking. As convoluted as our capitalist healthcare system is, we dare not mention single-payer or government-option for fear of being branded a socialist. The disparaging term "socialized medicine" was first popularized by a public relations firm working for the American Medical Association in 1947 to disparage President Truman's proposal for a national health care system; it was label as anyone advocating universal access to health care must be a communist.

So, it is as it has been: I am a capitalist; you are a capitalist. That's the American way in which I have received my family's healthcare from 1960 through a small company and later through a large corporation. It's a system through which the 2010-reform act attempted cost control for expanded coverage in a free-market, not by totally inflexible government control but with some stringent regulation. In such a system, mandates are of essences; it's where the capitalist health insurers, without too much infringement by government, continue to be profitable to their stockholders, with some restraints on exorbitant profits. 

Chief Justice Roberts says the health mandate is a "tax" and so it is. From a political standpoint, the tax issue is why neither side wants to talk about it, unless it can be demagogued to their favor.

Enhanced health-delivery efficiency with greater emphasis in preventive care, along with "paying more and taking less" becomes the pledging-idiom of recipients and providers of healthcare. That is if the US's 17% of GDP healthcare cost  gains closer parity to about 8% in other developed countries or a Switzerland's high at 11% of GDP. These countries provide universal healthcare with better outcomes in many cases than the US. Actually, among nine rich nations, the per-capita rate of "Deaths Due to Surgical or Medical Mishaps" the US  was highest by far, when a Commonwealth Fund study was done 2001 and 2004.

Logically health-care reform, in this administration, was taken on early, not only for more optimum coverage, but in the process to look more closely at cost-control measures which affect the economy. When waste is eliminated, the savings can flow to benefit other economic-sectors. At this point cost savings is zero or negligible. Even so, waiting on the nonexistent more idealized, ideological plan, based on history, would most certainly die of initiative breakdown. If our representatives don't take seriously their responsibility to build on coverage and cost control, surely the health law's currently growing acceptance will die, which I guess is the hope of and uselessness of the US House voting its repeal this week.

A redeeming factor may be that some center-seeking Republicans, such as Jeb Bush, in growing numbers, including those in House and Senate, are recognizing the hazards of Grover Norquist's "no tax pledges." Bush's recent reproach of Norquist brought attention to Bruce Bartlet, a Reagan advisor, who commented that after President Reagan lowered taxes, he signed into law tax raises 11 times. Regardless of any benefit from Norquist defections for more common-sense approach, ongoing healthcare improvements won't be easy because the of natural, endemic problems in our "for profit" healthcare system.

Models for improved efficiency and cost control have been proven, such as Cleveland Clinic, and there is much to be learned from some European countries who actually do use private insurance, such as Germany and Switzerland, where seniors stick with their private coverage no matter how old they are. "Contrary to American wisdom, most developed countries manage health care without resorting to "socialized medicine," says T. R. Reid in his book The Healing of America.

We don't have to wait for further study as some suggest; that would be the killer of the beginning of something that can be much improved upon. But as Reid say, "There are hundreds of companies with a multi-billion-dollar stake in the status quo; those firms and their backers on Wall Street are fiercely resistant to any change that might cut off the gravy train." Thus, the challenge to overcome, like so many other things in this country, is a consent of the "money monopoly" in a "give and take" where greed is no more the powerful oligarch.

----------------------------------------------------

"Fair and Balanced" - "You decide" - THE FOX EFFECT: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine (My personal opinion, in fairness, is that FOX News does have some straight-up reporting, e.g. Sheppard Smith's report.

An excerpt: 

Then there is the deliberate spread of misinformation. Polls consistently find Fox News viewers among the most ignorant on a variety of issues. For example, NBC News’s online publication First Read reported in April 2009 that “72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly.” 12 As First Read pointed out, this was “rampant misinformation” that large numbers of Fox News viewers believed.

Following the 2010 election, the University of Maryland released a study finding that Fox News viewers were the most misinformed audience of any major news network. Compared with those who never watch Fox, frequent viewers of the network were:

·         Thirty-one percentage points more likely to agree that “most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit.” In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said just the opposite: that health care reform would actually decrease the deficit.

·         Thirty-one points more likely to agree that “it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States.” In fact, the birthed claims had been repeatedly debunked during the 2008 election by numerous nonpartisan and even Republican sources, including former Hawaii governor Linda Ingle.

·         Thirty points more likely to agree that “most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring.” In fact, there is broad scientific consensus that not only is climate change occurring but human activity is the cause.

·         Fourteen points more likely to agree that “the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts.” The nonpartisan PolitiFact.com noted that the stimulus bill provided tax cuts to 95 percent of workers.

·         Fourteen points more likely to agree that “their own income taxes have gone up.” Most Fox viewers could have confirmed this to be false by looking at their own tax return.

·         Thirteen points more likely to agree that “the auto bailout only occurred under Obama.” In fact, it had begun under George W. Bush.

·         Twelve points more likely to agree that “most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses.” 13 USA Today reported with a banner headline in August 2010, “Economists Agree: Stimulus Created Nearly 3 Million Jobs.” 14

When confronted with this study, Michael Clemente, Fox’s senior vice president for news, reacted in a telling way. Instead of expressing concern about Fox’s apparent failure to inform their viewers, or arguing with the substance or methodology of the study, Clemente attacked the messenger, sarcastically impugning the reputation of the University of Maryland. Acting more like a political attack dog than a major media executive, Clemente told The New York Times, “The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study the Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School,  ” adding, “Given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.” 15

But this was hardly the first time Fox’s viewers had been revealed to be conspicuously misinformed. In 2003, the Program on International Policy Attitudes conducted “a series of national polls between January and September.” The results, as reported by The San Diego Union Tribune, found:

·         “A majority of Americans (52 percent) believed evidence was found linking Iraq to September 11.”

·         “A large minority (35 percent) believed weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.”

·         “A majority (56 percent) believed most world opinion supported the war.”

·         “Fox led the list for those with at least one misperception (80 percent). It also led for those holding all three— 45 percent, compared with 12 percent to 15 percent for the other networks.” 16

Misinformation has consequences, especially in a democracy. “In general, you end up with citizens who are acting on bad information when they carry out their civic duties,” says Kelly McBride, an expert on media ethics at the Pointer Institute, speaking about the media in general. “It affects the governing of a nation. It inspires people to make their voting decisions on fear or lies.” 17      

Brock, David; Rabin-Hat, Ari (2012-02-21). The Fox Effect: How Roger Ails Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine (Kindle Locations 179-185). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.