Response to Health-Care Misinformation, Demagoguery, and Monopolist Perils

a  blog post by Cornell Cox, July 18th, 2012. All articles posted may be read at the blog site by clicking Critical Actions or reached by search engine, type in: Critical Actions: What's Your Opinion? Anyone desiring not to be on this mail list may reply to CornellCox@msn.com.

Note: Space and time does not permit full reply to all remarks, but I hope I've covered some of the higher points. (At end of my commentary, I've offer some books to read which may help answer question not covered here.) The yellow highlighted areas are mine and not the guest writer. Your comments may be made directly at the blog site, if so I'll get a copy or you may continue to respond by email.

When I wrote this essay, I didn't expect as much opinion on media or some of the visceral, illogical response. On the other hand there was some very thoughtful and reasoned retort, and I am appreciative of all who commented. If you can believe it, the verbiage has become less invective than some responses to my earlier blog post. The mild references to "worse than Stalin," "Leftist " (the advocating of liberal, socialist, or communist political and social change or reform), the liberals, the liberals, "Cornell you and your liberal friends" disparagements, maybe doesn't contribute to an affable, civil discourse. Some of my centrist-left friends may take offence. I had my say on that stuff when I expounded in Fallacy of Political Labels. So let's just drop those references and state either "left", "liberal" or "progressive" when referring to people of the opposite Party.

I'll take claim to being "socially progressive," described as in Liberal meaning not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry; favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded; Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism; tending to give freely. On the other side of the political label, I'll claim "fiscal conservatism," with some caveats to excessive austerity during severe-recessions. (To be explained in later blog.)

So far as "liberals having no ears," I expect the "great conservative" of our time, William F. Buckley, to whom I listened and respected, would be thunderstruck at some of the rhetoric echoing from the right-thunder-storms. Buckley would agree, I believe, with Sam Tanenhaus, in his book The Death of Conservatism: "There remains in our politics a place for an authentic conservatism—a conservatism that seeks not to destroy but to conserve."

Perhaps, to sum up the opinion for some right-views on the TV news media is this response: "Thank God for Fox News. If you would watch and listen more, you wouldn't be so quick to send this kind of information. JAB"   

Over the past several years, incredulously I've heard some friends admit, "I only watch FOX NEWS." I agree with some of the responses herein, it's healthy to test various news channels. If not, certainly one will come away not only with a more biased view, potentially one indoctrinated to an uncompromising, Limbaugh's spiel.  

I believe, it's only FOX that claims the "Fair and Balanced" slogan. If you claim it, should you not be held accountable? In prior blog discussions, some of my right-friends tried to equate Glenn Beck's show with what was happening on MSN, but as it turned out, Beck the conspiracy theorist, became "too foxy" even for FOX. On a regular basis I watched Fox's NewsWatch, a panel of four critiquing the news, until they removed the better progressive panel members, which left the show so clearly extreme, right tilted. (Maybe by now they've changed.) In its place I chose Reliable Sources, hosted by Howard Kurtz on CNN. For me CNN is the "most trusted," as they claim: such programs a GPS with Fareed Zakaria for a world-point-of-view or Erin Burnett's OUTFRONT news program. I also watch MSN's Hardball, the ramble/scramble in politics, which observably leans left, but Chris Matthews gives all a fair shot, as he holds the would-be political-spinners in line. Somewhat surprisingly, when the local Republican Party guru-leader, Linwood Parker, was highlighted in the local paper for his pleasures off-duty, one of his interest was watching Hardball. Also on MSN is a relatively new show, two hours every Sat. and Sun., 8 to 10 am: Up is hosted by Chris Hayes, articulately talented, who is perceptibly liberal, but a reasonable progressive. With different panels of four and outside commentators -some conservative, it's the only place you can get this kind of in-depth debate on many issues. DVR it, speed through a full hour and half of intriguing discussion, as I do most of what I watch on TV.

I think the reason some people don't see conservatives on CBS, NBC, ABC, or read them in the New York Times is because what was once considered "conservative" no longer registers for some on the right, certainly those that have been drawn into extremism.

So far as time limits this progressive will "give you an ear" to anything within the realm of reason and reality. Now, I hear my right-friends saying, "there is no such thing as a reasonable liberal."

I'm totally for free speech with all the rights protected in the First Amendment. However, so called news organizations that are privileged to have power over the public airwaves should be held to certain boundaries, accountable for fact and truth, discerned investigatively, not to spread untruths or to give conspiracy theorist free air time. The hype in all media, internet included, without respect to truth or ethics, creates an ethos whereby email-rumors and fallacies breed --- where even some good, gullible people really believe all that stuff. Case in point: Just last week a friend came by my house, very upset that at her church, a local protestant mainline denomination, the preacher handed out copies of an email rumor to certain individuals, she included, as they exited the church. It's one of the, dozens or hundreds, rampant e-rumors that have been pervasive online: In this excerpt it falsely quoted President Obama: "We as a nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice, which is WHY my wife disrespect the Flag, and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past." Free speech?

My friend JW parsed or otherwise questioned/commented (in blue font) on about every paragraph of my essay. (His response is at end of this writing.) He is ones of the smartest young man I have ever worked with, but I really believe he may have some catching up to do: Allen West, a U. S. House Representative from Florida, recently said there were 78 to 81 U. S. House members who are communist. Yes, those "commie words" are thrown around freely by the extremist-right. And you might want to check out the latest accusations by Michelle Bachman and the guidance-shtick Rush Limbaugh is giving to the Romney campaign. When we can reclaim respectful common-sense, we'll be able to regain common-good, a moral recovery.

I believe in the Capitalist System, not totally untethered; it is the free market, not government, under which I worked and made a living for my family the full forty-five years of hard, devoted work. I would never portray the wealthy or business owner as evil; successful business and businessman was my goal in life; I believe in wealth and believe that government's small-business policies and regulations should be more favorable. However, I wouldn't put too much trust in the National Chamber of Commerce to be its first priority to help the small the businessman: many small business entities, in great numbers, come under the umbrella of giant corporations that their big-money lobbyist ensure priority.

It is my belief in the system, and concern for it, that gives me pause to better understand that something has gone wrong with the system in the last several years. The "exorbitant profits" term should have been more clearly differentiated or more appropriately defined: In my estimation, a large corporations', none of which applies to owners and operators on my mail list, exorbitant profits or easy-made profits could be profits of monopolist opportunism, unfair trade practices, corporate welfare, gains by unethical means or graft, which exceed all bounds, as of custom or fairness. It might be Coca-Cola who's lobbyist ensure "sweet sodas" sell on food stamps. Such large corporations could be big oil or large corporate farms on tax subsidies or, e.g., Golden West Financial, Wachovia's debacle; Countrywide Financial, Bank of America's misfortune; or the JPMorgans' possible excessive trading in derivatives: profitable activities that do not add value to the economy, but in fact are deleterious to it. Such as was the financial debacle of 2008 which remains our long haul to recovery.

Let me give you a perspective as it pertains to healthcare. Wendell Potter, a veteran insurance executive with CIGNA who's conscience got the best of him, resigned and spoke out on how corporate public relation kills health care and deceives Americans:

            "Yet in 2009, the five largest for-profit insurance companies waltzed through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression to set records for combined profits. WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, Aetna, CIGNA, and Humana reported total profits of $12.2 billion in 2009, up 56 percent from the previous year. It was the best year ever for big insurance.

            How did they do it? Not by insuring more people. In 2009, the five companies covered 2.7 million fewer Americans in private health plans than in 2008.

            Throughout the health care reform debate of 2009 and 2010, top health insurance executives argued that total industry profits equal only one penny of every dollar spent in the U.S. health care system. That was a big part of the industry’s effort to make people think—erroneously—that insurers have little to do with rising health care premiums. But even using their one-penny formula, that would mean the health insurance industry collected $25 billion in profits in 2009 alone. At that rate, over a ten-year period that penny of profit could finance more than 25 percent of the $940 billion health care reform law." Potter, Wendell (2010-11-09). Deadly Spin (p. 144). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.

For The Crisis of European Democracy here's an insight: "Certainly, some European countries have long needed better economic accountability and more responsible economic management. However, timing is crucial; reform on a well-thought-out timetable must be distinguished from reform done in extreme haste. Greece, for all of its accountability problems, was not in an economic crisis before the global recession in 2008. (In fact, its economy grew by 4.6 percent in 2006 and 3 percent in 2007 before beginning its continuing shrinkage.) ---- As Adam Smith (often seen simplistically as the first guru of free-market economics) wrote in “The Wealth of Nations,” there are “two distinct objects” of an economy: “first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or, more properly, to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services.”

One of the problems Greece has is her weakness, in action, to collect taxes due; same for the U. S. as the IRS goes after more individuals and small businesses, giving large corporations a pass with very few audits. David Cay Johnston writes: "Knowing how this secretive world operates is crucial to understanding how large corporations have been shifting the burden of taxes off themselves and onto you in ways that Congress never intended, that the IRS is ill equipped to deal with and that some judges have found to be perfectly legal." In fact the corporate revenue contribution to the tax coffers has dropped to an all-time low of 7-8% of the total collected.

·         Johnston: "Despite all the deregulation rhetoric, government grows ever bigger. The number of federal government workers shrinks, but the ranks of people who are hired on contract at much greater cost increases. In 2000 workers hired on contract cost our federal government $207 billion. By 2006 this had swelled to $400 billion—rivaling the expense of either Social Security or interest on the federal government’s growing debt."

·         "There is a reason that 35,000 people are registered as lobbyists in Washington, double the number of lobbyists employed there in 2000. They are there to seek favors, from outright gifts of your tax dollars to subtle changes in rules that funnel money to their clients, thwart competition, hold you back, and buoy others. Among the ironies is that many of the most damaging policies have been created in the name of Adam Smith, the original modern economist." Johnston, David Cay (2005-01-04). Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else (Kindle Locations 4087-4089). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

Encouragingly, for American economic recovery, the giant corporations have $2 trillion-plus capital just waiting to spill out the economic-pump. It is the large, giant corporations that have and continue to do be very profitable throughout this economic slump.

As an analogy for mandated-health insurance, I offer the "liability auto insurance" equation: Certainly not everyone owns a car, but everyone depends on the public transportation system, cradle to grave, to receive food, heat fuel, necessities for life in the modern society, and travel to-an-fro for healthcare service. Can you name a U. S. State that doesn't require auto liability - maybe one, Florida? not required in full measure as the others, I'm not sure? Really, if someone challenges its constitutionally, and it may have been, do you think the John Roberts Court would find it unconstitutional throughout the nation. No. Responsibility equally applies in health mandate for your cradle to grave use of the health system, no escaping it. My theory is that Chief Justice Robert wasn't about to throw this country into an unending broil ---- after his reflection of what the court did with "Citizens United."

Healthcare is the noose around the economic-neck that, without ongoing regulatory revisions, will stymied "small business" to a slower recovery. As Wendell Potter wrote before the health reformation act on  Employers, "more and more of them are dropping coverage for their employees because of the exorbitant rate increases that insurance companies have been imposing in recent years. Thousands of small businesses across the country have stopped offering coverage to their employees over the past fifteen years, in many cases because profit-driven health insurers have “purged” them from their rolls." (2010-11-09). Deadly Spin (p. 72). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.

I have empathy as a pro-small-business advocate, and sympathy, in their struggle to meet mandated employee coverage. There must be reprieve for the small businessman to make healthcare more affordable to business and employee, and in fact for all who spend, the now, 18% of GDP for their healthcare.

The question remains for health reform: If not the current reform act, repealing it, then what's next?  When and how? Shall we now take another step forward or a big step backward? 

I agree with JDG, except that it's my hope that all Americans will wake-up to see what's happening to their country, "Cornell and all his liberal friends" will not be enough.

For further study on these issues, I recommend these books: Perfectly Legal, Free Lunch, Deadly Spin, The Healing of America, Greedy Bastards, The New American Economy, Winner-Take-All Politics, Too Big Too Fail, The Big Short, The Benefits and The Burden, Reckless Endangerment, Reckless, The Broken Branch, The Great Reset, That Used to Be Us, Pity The Billionaire, The Death of Conservatism, and Aftershock.

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

Cornell,

Thanks for the article regarding tax and health care.

Unfortunately, many American are misinformed regarding the Health Care Act, commonly called Obama Care.

From the death panels when the law was being passed in Congress to the House trying to repeal it, it has been a non-unifying situation.

Rom Emanuel begged President Obama not to make The Health Care Act his signature effort, because of its ultimate outcome. Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, but it is better than all the rest". Today's Congress could have Churchill change his mind were he around today.

Obama had Simpson-Bowles almost passed, but the House speaker caved into the Tea Party.

I am going to vote in November. I am not optimistic about the next four years.

But historically, when America seems to be wrong, ultimately we wake up and do the right thing. I hope I live to see it.

As a result I am very selective of what I watch on TV - WRAL 5:00 to 6:30 and NBC 6:30 to 7PM . After that it is sports, PBS, AMC, and TCM.

Best regards.

JG

----------------------------------
I NEVER watch Fox news! They are so biased that it is sickening!
Thanks for sharing, Cornell.

SC

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

Cornell,

Thanks for sharing this.

DS

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

OK I watch MSNBC and they are worst than Stalin on misinformation. NBC News has lost it credibility and CNN is trying to regain.

I would speculate the majority of MSNBC listeners believe they will get their healthcare free under Obamacare so who is right or misinformed. Once they all figure they have to pay something for healthcare and even be taxed for it if they don't buy into a plan the Left looses it edge. Why do we need all those IRS agents?

I have the solution. Let all the Liberals and big Democratic Donors all stop contributing to Super PACs and start their own Insurance Company to assist the needy and or buy a healthcare plan for those that fall through the safety nets already in place. We (even the Heartless Conservative) will contribute but we know it would be 80% bloated and go bankrupt in months. But I know the answer already , The Healthcare Bill gave exemptions to all their friends ( Union Plans, AARP etc). Healthcare Law not good enough even for our Congress and President. The other solution take 10% of money that it will cost the taxpayers from this disaster and set up the State Heathcare Xchanges (one of the good ideas) and have competition on coverage, but -- see the Left just cannot let the market work and let the government give incentives to the small business owner to cover his employees someone might make a profit other than their liberal friends ( that is the problem government is picking winners and losers-- they have to mandate this and that and the Left has proven they will do whatever to achieve ultimate control of everyone lives ---which equals ultimate checkmate on Freedom and the future of the World. I say the World is at stake because WE the people who believe in Freedom and less government have nowhere else to go. Cornell and all your Liberal friends will wake up one day and say what did we just let happen to our country. As a military historian, World history Major and personally seen the world in War and Peace I know the stakes it is not pretty. It want be Liberal vs Conservative it will be Haves and Haves Not.

Some good points but I can rephrase the questions and get a different misguided result from any political leaning group. Read the Health Care Bill yourself and you will see the train wreck that will hit us. The bill is 90% bad and 10% good. Look at Medicaid and Medicare need to reform these programs before they tackle Universal Health. I have government healthcare as Military so I don't have a fight right now but we know the Health Care Bill will impact our care in the future.

Most are missing the point on Non citizens. They will be cared for same as today through emergency room and County Health. So are they now going to be fined or Taxed at the hospital before care? How about all the folk you say you are helping-- now they have pay-- no free ride as I heard from the Left.

I would go point by point on the topics but Leftist have no ears.

Thanks,

JDG

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

Cornell: Again you are right on!
These have got to be the "worst of times" for American democracy.
Our present-day politics are built on ignorance and prejudice, with the Republicans leading the way.
Making progress on anything that truly matters? Forget about it.
--- WL

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

Hi Cornell,

I was most impressed reading your blog, it presents a very well reasoned
and reasonable description of what's underlying the general hysteria
that seems to exist all over the country on this topic and debunking
most of the alleged facts that have led to this sorry state of affairs.
I wish more people would simply read the primary sources instead of
relying on FOX News and other rabble-rousers for their information.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I look forward to continuing to
get your email observations on the body politic.

In the meantime, stay cool and watch out for tornadoes!

All the best,
P

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

Cornell, thanks for this article. Keep them coming. I love the conversation. All the research in the world won't answer the question of whether the news outlets, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, have agendas that slant one way or the other. They all claim to be unbiased, but the evidence proves otherwise. FOX is no better of worse than any other, if you watch prime time news shows. See the "Ed Show" or "Rachel Maddow" on NBC. Or Shawn Hannity on FOX. I do like Bill Oreily, but after reading his books, I realize that he is not a socially conservative as he is portrayed. FOX does have liberal commentators, Alan Combs, Juan Williams, and Bob Beckell. I don't see conservative voices on NBC, ABC, CBS, or the NY Times…

As to the Health Care Bill. Some simple facts are not in dispute. (see below) The unintended consequences will be staggering:

• Everyone will be required to purchase insurance. Everyone. I currently pay nearly 10k per year in premiums for my family of 6 healthy people. Plus my deductible is $5800 per year, so my minimum output is 15k per year before the insurance pays anything. (I consider that, my fair share) How will a family of 4 with a modest income of 60k-70k per year manage that?

• Beginning in 2014, my employees will be forced to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Now I believe that everyone, including the working poor, has a choice now, and could contribute toward their healthcare needs, except they are busy paying credit card bills, cell phones, eating out, buying overpriced clothing, shoes, and entertainment, etc… The penalty will range up to $2000 per family, for not purchasing insurance, which I assume will go into the medicare/medicaid system.

• Small business with 50+ full time workers, will be assessed a $2000 per employee penalty for each full time worker. For (-----) and me, that comes to 180 workers (out of 240 total) or $360,000 per year. That's more than we make per year in total profit for all 3 locations. Never mind our debt that we took on to start these businesses. If we pass that on to our guests and other small businesses do the same, can you even imagine the inflation for the common man, who eats with us? Just looking at our business, we'll have to increase our prices by just over $1 per meal to recover this and be back to the narrow margins we currently enjoy. (and that works only if the same number of people dine with us, which is unlikely) The line below about "corporations that make exorbitant profits" paints with a broad brush, those small businesses who incorporate, take real risk, and employee real people. My debt to get my business off the ground is staggering, and I, like most small business people, live on the razors edge most of the time, worrying about how to make the next payroll.

• The other unintended consequence will be cutting of hourly staff's hours to below 30 hours per week, thus eliminating overtime pay virtually completely, and forcing many of those persons currently working one job, to seek a 2nd job, to make ends meet. (and pay there health care penalty) This will further force more otherwise, healthy, able-bodied, people into the medicare and medicaid system. So… we further create and perpetuate the welfare state, because we'll be reducing incomes, and requiring output for health insurance. The consequences of the bill will be hurting the very people they intend to help.

On a personal note, the notion that anyone who owns a business is wealthy and therefore evil, is a terrible ideal to perpetuate. (-----) and I are perceived to be generous because we tithe, and support or school, club, and community. We believe that is a part of our worship to God, and that we are commanded in the bible to be good stewards of the blessings we have. Many people believe that we are generous because we have wealth. That couldn't be further from the truth.

While a person can prove or disprove their point of view (any point of view) using the internet, newspaper, TV, or radio… I don't believe that giving our government more power, control, or influence over our daily lives is in our best interests. The first thing every despot, tyrant, or dictator in history has done is increase the dependency of the people to the government. If they have control, they can take it away, change it to meet the governments needs, etc… Unfortunately our government is just like any other business. It's first priority is to grow, increase it's power/influence, and perpetuate itself.

I recommend a book called "Economic Facts and Fallicies", by Thomas Sowell, Economics Professor at Stanford. This book helped me to discern better the news reports that we are bombarded with everyday, and realize that every report is coming from an agenda.

thanks, keep your blog postings coming. EB.

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

Hey Cornell,

Good to hear hear from you. Hope your doing well. I love you man but I had to put some thought below.

Best Regards,

JW

Health-Care Misinformation, Demagoguery, and Monopolist Perils

A blog posting at Critical Actions by Cornell Cox 7-11-2012

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. Currently 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax, and the top 10% pay about 1/2 of all federal income taxes. Is that not enough on the highest earnings? Also, the bottom portion of the income spectrum actually get an earned income credit. A direct transfer of wealth. Question is, who will foot the bill for healthcare, including the indigent? How will the Obama plan change coverage for the indigent? If you can't afford it, you will still not buy it so you will still be uninsured. I don't see that the plan will help anyone in the lowest income bracket? Will the cost be more equitably shared by those, who are able, but irresponsibly shirk their duty, How is free choice a shrinking of duty? Many Americans object to buying insurance on many grounds. Amish, etc. Are they being irresponsible? Is not free choice what our country was founded on, not forced purchases of service that transfer wealth to huge insurance and health care companies. Why are healthy Americans forced to buy something they have chosen to want?  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, What is the % consider exorbitant? Who decides? i.e. corporations who benefit from favorable, governmental policy? Is not a forced policy of purchasing insurance a governmental windfall for all insurance companies? Will they share the cost with spread-around taxes? We all ready pay taxes to cover Medicare, Medicaid, state run hospitals, county health clinics and vast amounts of government funded health research. I don't see that Obamacare will help lower taxes but will raise them. Also, I don't think it will help the very poor, who will still not be able to afford to buy health insurance. Therefore they will still be the ward of the state. How will this program lower taxes or help the very poor?

Of course, tax-fairness is always a concern. Are we not concerned about the crushing tax burden which has placed our economy in shambles, ruined jobs, caused vast numbers of families to be in poverty? Crush local, state and federal debt caused by huge spending? The only way to stop the spend is to stop the taxes. We continue to recklessly raise taxes and fees, yet spend more each year. Is this fair to young children and the unborn generations who will pay for it?

Free-market capitalism, private insurance alone, is not well-suited to universal or optimum coverage; Agreed. However is universal coverage required for the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people? Insurance alone is part of the problem. it is complicated, difficult, and the reform-law going forward will need much tweaking. Why overturn our complete system on an experiment? Fix the coverage issues in many various ways and much of the public who wish to buy insurance could afford it. Forced mandates for specific coverage not needed by many families causes unneeded cost. 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. I haven't heard anyone calling the program communistic in many years. However, I agree a single payer system is a huge departure from capitalism. Socialism has miserably failed, brought vast suffering and destroyed the lives and livelihood of most of Europe. Should we follow Greece, Italy and the rest of Europe into crushing debt, low productivity, and huge interference into our personal lives?

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. Still don't understand what level of profit is "wrong"? Corporations are a reflection of American and some foreign owners? Mom, Pop, 401Ks, retirement, jobs, investment, growth, all depend on large, even huge profits. You can't raise the poor by crushing the rich and poor people don't hire anyone. We need much great profit to drive growth, investment, and jobs. You will always have less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize. Show we tax wealthy and subsidize poverty to get less wealth and more poverty?

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. Why are some many on the left, who demonized Roberts, now lauding him and accepting his word over Obama? Obama said it was not a tax, Roberts said it was? Is Obama or Roberts right? Is it a fine, a tax, a fee, or all three?

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. A system based on merit rewards those who take care of themselves, their loved ones and avoid bad habits. Again, you get more of what you subsidize. We are going to subsidize poor health habits by requiring the health to pay for the "unhealthy by choice". Why should people be forced to buy a product that takes care of people who refuse to take care of themselves? 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. Can you really compare Switzerland with the US? We have huge problem with systemic problems caused by cultural and social issues. 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. I can see no way in which this plan will actual reduce overall dollars spent on health care? There is no profit motive to reduce spending by doctors or hospitals, who make more when we spend more. Ins. companies are forced to insure all at set coverage. No one group is benefiting by reducing cost, since consumers are now no longer negotiating fees and service cost. At this point cost savings is zero or negligible. Actually it will increase dramatically. 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. The house is the one body of government most representative of the people. They stand for election more often, make far less, have far more turnover and are much closer in every way to the people. The constitution requires them to initiate all taxes. However, the tax, as justice Roberts calls it, started in the Senate, which is not legal. I think the house best represents the majority of Americans, since they elected on a purely mathematical formula of representation.

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. For Profit is reason almost every individual works daily. Charity is not real unless it is voluntary. We work to make wealth, and donate to find meaning. Why are so many individuals on the left upset about wealthy, including Romney's? Why not embrace what has made our country great which is the capitalistic system, couple with a generous, and informed population who constantly out-give all other nations? Americans are incredibly generous because they can give and love to do so. However, stripping them of wealth, and forcibly taking their income in the name of giving to the government is actually extreme greed by politicians who want to command control of the wealth.

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, What about UK, Italy, Greece, Russia, etc. 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; Which companies? From what I see, the most powerful health care firms, drug companies, insurance companies, doctors groups, all strongly support Obamacare? Who other than the rank and file of Americans is opposed? those firms and their backers on Wall Street are fiercely resistant to any change that might cut off the gravy train." I think the train has just received a massive infusion of cash directly from the average Americans who are now forced to buy what they don't want. 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 What is greed? What is profit? Is increasing taxes greed by taking what you did not earn to give away others income? 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, Actually it will not "give" coverage to anyone. However illegal immigrants do pay taxes in many cases. They will be forced to buy insurance as well as anyone else. The IRS doesn't care who you are or where you got your money. They just require you to pay the tax on it. This does, and will continue to apply to illegal immigrants. 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, Yes it will. The IRS is tasked with enforcing the law through internal regulations, much like the tax code used now. These codes are not law, but the courts have ruled over and over, that the carry the weight of law. The IRS will decide if the plan you buy meets the regulations and force insurance companies to comply. They will REQUIRE certain types of coverage, perhaps abortion. This essentially gives universal control over health care by the IRS. No you won't pay the tax to the IRS, but if you don't buy, you will pay the tax. 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, I agree, Obama has forced the Catholic church to comply with forced coverage of birth control. A ruling that all health plans cover abortion would easily accomplish this longstanding goal of the left to require universal abortion funded coverage. and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly." Where is the funding for Medicare heading? It is threatened by this plan. 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. That is not really what the CBO said and the devil is in the details. The plan will soon expand in coverage and cost.

· 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. I don't really think the question was worded clearly. If worded as "Do you believe Obama was not born in the US" the % who answered in the affirmative would have been much smaller.

· 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. What is broad scientific consensus? 50%? 60%,80%? Broad questions like this one are difficult to define or measure.

· 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. Which stimulus package? There have been several piece of legislation labeled as stimulus under both Bush and Obama. It's hard to define questions like this one.

· 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. Again this is hard to define. Do they mean the %? The net total dollars on an annual basis? Elimination of certain deductions? The payroll deduction? Many peoples taxes have gone in at least one of these four ways. Personal live changes, including selling home, losing deduction all affect these items. It's hard to say in terms of a groups personal taxes.

· Thirteen points more likely to agree that "the auto bailout only occurred under Obama." In fact, it had begun under George W. Bush. Agreed, However, Obama, strong-armed the deal that forfeited bondholder rights to union contracts by bypassing the bankruptcy proceeding in which a court would have decided the fate. Most like the unions would have taken a joint hit with the bond holders.

· 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 Again, it's hard to say. The debt created by the Bush War, Bush Bailout, Osama's Bailout and years of reckless spending will crush the jobs of millions if not checked. Economist agree that Greece is heading down a path to destruction due to years of unchecked spending. Are we next?

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, 9 years is a long time ago? 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 In summary on Fox: A free press is essential to democracy. The left is hugely offended by free speech unless it involves some measure of obscenity. Why the constant attacks on our institutions of the press? Fox is sometimes wrong and opinionated but rarely boring.

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.